This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1901 edition. Excerpt: ...Board in the second class of the clerical divisidn, and continued to exercise the same functions as before in the said department; that the Governor in Council, by an order dated 12th January 1885, fixed the amount of salary to be paid to the suppliant as from 1st January 1886 at 540$. per annum without annual or other increment; that the actual salary paid to the suppliant up to 31st December, 1896, had been at the rate of 4681. per annum; that on a special case--Fishe1' v. The Queen (u.)--stated by consent for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Victoria the Court decided that the suppliant was legally entitled to be paid salary at the rate of 5401. per annum from 1st January 1886, and that the 72l. per annum had been illegally deducted from the suppliant's salary; that thereupon the arrears of H01-ROYD, J salary at the rate of 72$. per annum from 1st January 1886 to F0 31st December 1890 had been paid over to the suppliant; that FER from 1st January 1891 up to 31st December 1896 (on which THE ('guns latter date the suppliant was retired from the Public Service) the actual salary paid to the suppliant had been at the rate of 4681. per annum; and that the proper salary payable to the suppliant from 1st January 1891 to 31st December 1896 was 5-1-Ot. per annum. The answer of the Attorney-General pleaded, 'inter atia, that " the petitioner's claim was and is barred by the Statute of Limitations, 21 Jae. I., c. 16." Gaunson and H. S. Cote for the petitioner--In the case of Rmztomjee v. The Queen (b), which is the only case in which the Crown has set up the Statute of Lionitations it was specifically held that "the Statute of Limitations does not apply to a petition of right." Blackburn, J., says, in...