PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
LLC.O. 882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE,
LONDON
Magistrates to sign Contracts of Ber-
vice.
Copy of Contract to be delivered to contracting parties.
Signed copy to be proof of Contract,
Government Notice No. 166 of 1868 dot revoked.
96
Inclosure 1 in No. 80.
Ordinance No. 7 of 1872.
An Ordinance (enacted by the Governor of Mauritius and its Dependencies, with the advice and consent of the Council of Gobernment thereof) to amend the Law relating to the signing of Contracts of Service and the delivery of Copies thereof.
(L.S.)
ARTHUR GORDON. March 6, 1872.
WHEREAS it has happened that certain written contracts of service, although voluntarily entered into between masters and servants, have been set aside, on the ground that they had not been signed by the Stipendiary Magistrate, in whose presence they had been entered into:
And whereas it is expedient that a remedy should, for the future, be provided against the consequences of Magistrates' negligence:
Be it therefore enacted, by his Excellency the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council of Government, as follows:--
1. Whenever a written contract of service shall be entered into between contract- ing parties, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Order in Council of the 7th September, 1888, or any other Law in force in this Colony, it shall be the duty of the Stipendiary Magistrate, or any clerk or officer, acting under Article 74 of Ordinance No. 81 of 1867, as heretofore, to subscribe the said written contract.
2. But it shall be the duty of the Magistrate to deliver to either of the contracting parties who shall claim the same, a copy, on unstamped paper, of the said written contract, which copy shall be signed by the Magistrate; and if such copy be duly signed by the Magistrate, or any of the officers mentioned in Article 1, the contract shall be in force and binding on all the contracting parties, even although the Stipendiary Magistrate has omitted to sign the written contract remaining in his custody.
3. The Magistrate's, or other officer's, signature on the copy delivered to the contracting parties claiming the same, and attestation that the same is a true copy of the contract remaining in his custody, shall be proof sufficient before all the Courts of this Colony that the contract was entered into, by the parties contracting, voluntarily, and with a clear understanding of its meaning and effect.
4. Nothing herein enacted shall, in any way, revoke or interfere with the Govern- ment Notice No. 166 of 11th November, 1868.
Passed in Council, at Port Louis, Island of Mauritius, this 5th day of March,
1872.
(Signed) JNO. ELLIOTT,
Acting Secretary to the Council of Government.
Inclosure 2 in No. 80.
Report upon Ordinance No. 7 of 1872, intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Law relating to the signing of Contracts of Service and the delivery of Copies thereof."
THE circumstances which gave rise to this Ordinance, and the object with which it was passed, are briefly as follows:-
By Royal Order in Council of 7th September, 1888, Chapter II, paragraph 8, it is declared that no written contract of service shall be in force within the Colony unless, inter alia, the Stipendiary Magistrate shall "subscribe the written contract in attesta- tion of the fact that it was entered into by the parties voluntarily and with a clear understanding of its meaning and effect." Written contracts remain in the possession of the Stipendiary Magistrate as custodian for the contracting parties.
In passing certain contracts of service between a number of Indian labourers and the proprietor of a sugar estate in this island, the Stipendiary Magistrate, through oversight, omitted to sign the contract of service relating to a considerable number of the Indians. This omission was not noticed at the time, and the Indians entered into, and continued in the service of, the proprietor for several months.
Some time after, a complaint for alleged ill-treatment having been brought by the Indians against their master, the fact that the magistrate had omitted to sign the
97
contract was discovered, and, on the ground of this informality, the Indians claimed the cancellation of the contract.
The question of the validity of the contract was brought before the Supreme Court, and, by a judgment of that Tribunal, the contract was declared to be invalid and the Indians freed from their engagements under it.
The grave consequences that might arise from such omissions both to the servant and to the master are very apparent; and, as the state of the law did not afford sufficient opportunity to either of the contracting parties to detect such informalities on the part of the magistrate at the passing of the contract and in time to have them rectified, it was judged proper to introduce the Ordinance upon which I have now the honour to report.
The 1st Artiole directs Stipendiary Magistrates or their clerks, when power to that effect has already been conferred upon them, to sign all written contracts of service entered into before them.
The 2nd Article entitles either of the contracting parties to claim and to obtain from the Stipendiary Magistrate a copy, on unstamped paper, signed by the magistrate, of any written contract entered into before him, and provides that, if the copy be duly signed, the contract shall be binding on all the contracting parties, even although the written contract remaining in the possession of the magistrate be not signed.
Article 8 declares that such copies duly signed and attested as true copies of the contract shall be accepted in all Courts of the Colony as proof that the contracting parties entered into the contract voluntarily and with a clear understanding of its meaning and effect.
I respectfully recommend that this Ordinance No. 7, of 1872, be confirmed by Her Majesty.
A. G. ELLIS, Acting Procureur-General,
May 1, 1872.
(Signed)
No. 81.
Governor the Hon. Sir A. H. Gordon, K.C.M.G,, to the Earl of Kimberley.--(Received June 4.) (No. 158. Miscellaneous.) My Lord,
Mauritius, May 2, 1872. I DULY received your Lordship's despatch No. 19 of the 20th January, requesting me to report upon the working of the Mauritius Law No. 18, of 1870, entitled: An Ordinance to Punish the enticing away and harbouring of Wives of Indian Immigrants.”
2. In compliance with your Lordship's directions I have made inquiries on this subject. Statistics have been collected from the District Courts and reports called for from the Procureur-General, the Protector of Immigrants, and the Acting Inspector- General of Police.
The inclosed return of cases under this Ordinance during the year 1871 appears to me sufficient to show that the Ordinance does not work satisfactorily, or, rather, does not work at all, for, out of fifty-one persons charged with this offence, only eight were convicted. In the districts of Flacq and Plaines Wilhems every person accused (and in one of these districts the number so socused was not less than eleven) was acquitted.
The fact is that so long as the word "wife" is held to signify "wife legally married," it can only affect a small portion of the female companions of the Indian population. As the law now stands, unless married before their departure from India, a marriage between Indians according to Hindoo or Mohammedan rites and ceremonies is a mere nullity, and the woman has no other legal status than that of a concubine.
But even if legally married at the Civil Status Office, I doubt whether, if the wife was a Creole Indian, born in Mauritius, she would come within the provisions of Ordinance No. 12 of 1870, which relates exclusively to women come from India.
The Procureur-General, rather to my surprise, reports it sa his opinion that the Ordinance is "working satisfactorily," a conclusion in which I can by no means concur, and which he bases on the fact that a majority of the osses appears to him to have been "amicably settled," although he admits that a complaint is "sometimes lodged by an immigrant who, on inquiry, is found to be the paramour and not the husband of the woman who has left him, and he is then not entitled to the protection of the Ordinance."
(134)
21: