Commission to Edward Lawford from Bombay Supreme Court: letter, Lawford to J. C. Melvill, 30 Oct. 1849 enclosing case as to whether this commission would interfere with Lawford's duties as Company Solicitor, and opinion of Wigram, 1 Oct. 1849. (in L/L/6/3, un-numbered)
Embezzlement by Sir Thomas Turton as Administrator under Act 39 and 40 Geo. 3, cap. 79 and as Registrar in Equity and Ecclesiastical side of Bombay Supreme Court: letter, Lawford to Melvill, 2 Feb. 1850, enclosing opinion only, as to institution of criminal proceedings, of Wigram, 1 Feb. 1850. NB...
Patents for new inventions in India: whether Crown or Indian Government were competent to grant them, and joint opinion of Jervis, Romilly and Wigram, 24 May 1850. Enclosures noted on cover are numbered separately: see nos. 812-819. See also nos. 775B, 785. (in L/L/6/3)
Claim by owners of ship "Thetis" for loss, owing to Madras Government not embarking the agreed number of troops, and opinion of Wigram, 4 Jun. 1850. (in L/L/6/3)
Lt. Col. H. N. Douglas, deceased: legality of payment of part of estate to Administrator General, and of latter's obtaining letters of administration, and joint opinion of Dodson, Romilly, Cockburn and Wigram, 20 Dec. 1850. (in L/L/6/3)
Costs of E.I.C.'s law suits: whether revenues of India chargeable for these costs without sanction of Board of Control, and whether latter have general control over Company's legal expenses, and joint opinion of Cockburn and Bethell, 5 Mar. 1856. See also no. 801. (copy) (not in table of contents...
Property of Maharanee Chunda Koour of Lahore: whether, after she had been taken prisoner, the government had a right to confiseate property, and joint opinion of Cockburn, Bethell, Wigram and Melvill, 10 Mar. 1856. (in L/L/6/5, not L/L/6/3, at p. 27, numbered 12)
Further to 800, on 2nd point mentioned there, and joint opinion of Thesiger, Kelly and Wigram, 3 April 1856. (in L/L/6/3, at p. 383: see note to no 800)
Subscription to Madras Civil Fund: claim by Mr A. Robertson, late of Madras Civil Service, for refund of excess of his contributions over half value of his annuity, and joint opinion of Wigram and Melvill, 2 May 1857. (in L/L/6/3, at p. 395: see note to no. 800. Another similar case is entered at...