A.—2 a.

1880. NEW ZEALAND.

FURTHER DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW ZEALAND.

Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.

No. 1. Copy of a DESPATCH from the Eight Hon. Sir M. E. Hicks Beach to the Oeeicer Administering- the Government of New Zealand. (Circular.) Sir, — DoAvning Street, 20th February, 1880. I have the honor to transmit to you, for your information, a copy of the judgment of the Eords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the appeal of Musgrave v. Pulido, from the Supreme Court, Jamaica. I have, &c, M. E. HICKS BEACH. %' The Officer Administering the Government of New Zealand.

Enclosure in No. 1. Judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the Appeal of Musgrave v. Pulido, from the Supreme Court, Jamaica; delivered Saturday, 13th December, 1879. Present: Sir James W. Colville, Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir Montague E. Smith, Sir Robert P. Collier, and Sir Henry S. Keating. To an action of trespass brought against the appellant, Sir Anthony Musgrave, in the Supreme Court of Jamaica, for seizing and detaining at Kingston, in Jamaica, a schooner called the "Florence," of which the plaintiff was charterer, and which had, as alleged, put into the port of Kingston in distress and for repairs, the appellant pleaded the following plea: " The defendant, Sir Anthony Musgrave, by his attorney, comes and says that he ought not to be compelled to answer in his action, because he saith that at the time of the grievances alleged in the said declaration, and at the time of the com« mencement of this action, he was and still is Captain General and Governor-in-Chief of the Island of Jamaica and its dependencies, and was and still is as such entitled to the privileges and exemptions appertaining to such office and to the holder thereof, and that the acts complained of in the said declaration were done by him as Governor of the said Island of Jamaica, and in the exercise of his reasonable discretion as such, and as acts of State ; and this defendant is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment if he ought to be compelled to answer in this action." The plaintiff demurred to this plea, and the present appeal is from the judgment of the Supreme Court allowing the demurrer, and ordering the appellant to answer further to the writ and declaration. The plea is in form a dilatory plea, and does not profess to contain a defence in bar of the action. It was advisedly pleaded as a plea of privilege, with the object of raising the question of the immunity of the appellant as Governor from being impleaded and compelled to answer in the Courts of the colony. That this was so is plain, not only from the form of the plea, but from an arrangement come to between the parties before the argument of the demurrer. In an interlocutory proceeding to set aside a judgment of nonpros, as irregularly obtained, an order was mace by consent "that all pleas ef the defendant, Sir Anthony Musgrave, except the plea of privilege by attorney, be struck out, together with replications and entry of judgment of non pros., with liberty to the plaintiff to demur, it being arranged that the demurrer be set down for hearing at the present term, and if a judgment respondeat ouster the defendant, Sir Anthony have liberty to plead not guilty by statutes." The decision of the Supreme Court was accordingly given upon the plea, as a plea of privilege, and altogether upon this aspect of it, the judgment being one of respondeat ouster. I—A. 2a.