PROPERTY OF COLONIAL CONVICTS

Dunstan Times, Issue 589, 1 August 1873, Page 3

PROPERTY OF COLONIAL CONVICTS

A singular case, involving the question whether the Crown is entitled to the personal property of persons convicted in the colonies, came on for hearing in the ViceChancellor’s Court on March 1. As our readers will be aware, the right of the Crown to forfeiture,on a conviction in Eng- 1 land has been done away with, but the question has been raised as to'whether this right also extends to conviction in the colonics. It appears that in 1825, Arthur Blewort Bryer, when a young man, articled to a solicitor, was convicted at the Oldßai’.ey. on ! his own confession, of stealing two silver ! watches. At that time he was entitled to ! certain funds under his grandfather’s will. \ The sentence was that he was simply lined i Is., upon the understanding that he was to go out of the country. He accordingly went out to Australia, and was afterwards convicted there on three occasions of embezzling small sums. Not having been heard of ■since, 1857, lo'tersof administration wese granted to his brother, who then applied to the trustees for payment of the trust funds to which the convict was entitled, hut they paid the money into Court under the Trustees Relief Act, suggesting that the Crown might be entitled. The administrator then applied for a rc-graut of the property, but the Attorney-General, on the part of the Crown, presented a petition for payment of the fund, on the ground that it was forfeited by the conviction in 1552, and if not by that, by the subsequent convictions in Australia. The petition was supported by Mr. Hemming, for the Crown? and Mr. Swanstou Q.C., with whom was a Mr. Stirling, for the administrator, and Mr. Kekewick for the trustees. The Vice-Chancellor (Sir James Bacon) said that, according to the official report of the convict’s career, he arrived in the colony of New South Walts, by the ship Columhie, in 1525. In November, 1820, ho was convicted for forging a cheque, and sentenced to death ? hut the sentence was commuted to transportation for two years. He was convicted of forgery again in Juno, 1823, and transpoitcd for seven years. After completing that sendeyoe ho returned to Sydney, and was convicted in July, 1837, of larceny, and transported for seven years to Norfolk Island. He returned in 1840, to serve a commuted sentence, and was finally discharged in 1812. It was clear from this that he (his Honor) had not to decide upon the effect of a conviction in Australia, inasmuch as the larger sum was vested in the convict by his grandfather’s will, at the time of his conviction in London, and it was not proved that the other fund ever belonged to him. Thereconld not, however, be any doubt that the Crown was entitled to all the convict could have claimed under his grandfather’s will. It had been suggested that the operation of the law as to forfeiture was of a feudal nature peculiar to the soil of England, and therefore not applicable to the Colonies ; but Her Majesty was clearly as much Queen of the Colony of New South Wales as of England, and her prerogative was just as valid with regard to convictions, as in this country. There was a small sum to which the decision would not apply ; hut the rest of the fund that derived from the grandfather’s will, had become clearly forfeited to the Crown, and there would bo an order to that effect accordingly. His Honor concluded by remarking that as Counsel for the Crown had had the enjoyment of arguing the 'question, it only remained for him to be merciful and generous with regard to the costs— European Hail.