3094.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
།།།།།།
C.O.
Reference :-
· 885
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
No. 8.
(BRITISH HONDURAS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
MY LORD DUKE,
Lincoln's Inn, March 20, 1860. We were honoured with your Grace's commands signifled in Mr. Merivale's letter of the 20th January fast stating that he was directed by your Grace to transmit to us copies of a Despatch, and a portion of its enclosures, received from the Superin- tendent of Honduras (through the Governor of Jamaica), and to request that we would favour your Grace with our advice and opinion thereupon.
Mr. Merivale was also pleased to state that the constitution of the settlement of British Honduras was briefly described in Clark's Colonial Law, page 236, and its judicial system rested mainly on the two Acts of Parliament there referred to.
And that in 1846 a Chief Justice (Mr. Temple) was appointed by the Crown, under the local Act, 6 Vict. c. 2., for the creation of a legal judge (of which Mr. Merivale was pleased to enclose a copy), but received his general commission from the Governor of Jamaica, and that there was no copy of that commission in Mr. Merivale's depart- ment, but it was understood that it authorised him in general terms to discharge the functions of Chief Justice; and that he held also a separate commission for the trial of offences under the Act of Parliament referred to.
Mr. Merivale was further pleased to annex copies of the local Act, 18 Vict. c. 22. and 20 Vict. c. 20. "to declare the laws in force in this settlement" which appeared to constitute the present basis of its jurisprudence.
Mr. Merivale was also further pleased to state that the first question for our opinion was whether under the Local Masters' and Servants' Ordinance (of which copy was also annexed) an appeal lay in the case of Oswald v. Jenkins from the court of the police magistrate to the Supreme Court or not.
2ndly. Whether (assuming Jenkins to have been aggrieved by the proceedings in this case) he had any further remedy.
But Mr. Merivale was pleased to add that the further (and more important) questions on which our advice was requested were of a more general nature.
3rdly. Whether the conduct of Chief Justice Temple as to the matters alleged against him in the case of Oswald v. Jenkins, particularly in staying his first order, by the second order of 26th July without application from either party, and in re- fusing to hear argument on the question of the right of appeal previously to making his second order, was such as to render any steps on the part of Her Majesty's Government proper to be taken; and
4thly. Whether the conduct of the Superintendent towards Chief Justice Temple as detailed in this correspondence was warranted by their relative position, and, if not, what notice ought to be taken by the Secretary of State of such conduct of the Superintendent?
In obedience to your Grace's commands, we have carefully considered the accom- panying Despatch and its enclosures, and have the honour to
Report
That, 1st, we are of opinion that no appeal lay in the case of Oswald v. Jenkins from the court of the police magistrate to the Supreme Court. Under the Local Masters and Servants' Ordinance, 18 Viot. c. 12., the police magistrate's jurisdiction is to be exercised "in a summary manner," and neither that ordinance nor the ordinance relative to the constitution and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 18 Vict. c. 21., gives an appeal. Indeed, the latter Ordinance by expressly conferring appellate jurisdiction over cases determined in the "summary court," and making no provision for appeals from the "police court" puts this matter beyond bt With reference to the power of dealing with convictions of the police magistrate on certiorari, it is sufficient to observe that that course was not adopted, but that the proceedings before the Chief Justice were of an ordinary appellate character.
2nd. Mr. Jenkins has it in his power to appeal against the decision arrived at by the Chief Justice (being a judgment of the Supreme Court) to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
o 16278.-38. 25.-9/86.