PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
CO.
Reference :-
2
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report
1. That the British Government would not, in our opinion, be warranted in causing Hayes to be apprehended in Manila by consent of the local authorities, but that such apprehension would give to the Government of the United States of America a just ground of complaint against both the Spanish and British Governments.
2. That the captains of British men-of-war could not, with safety to themselves, arrest Hayes on board a British ship on the high seas without some further evidence than is contained in the papers in this case laid before us.
3. If the evidence adduced before the Court at Singapore was insufficient to warrant the committal of Hayes for trial, the persons who had apprehended him would be liable to answer Hayes in damages for the arrest; and if such arrest had been made by the direction of the British Government, the Government of the United States of America would have a claim against the British Government for compensation.
It does not appear from the papers laid before us, whether Mr. Williams duly took the depositions of witnesses against Hayes in the presence of the accused, as prescribed by section 270 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. If such depositions were so taken, they would be receivable at Singapore as evidence against Hayes, and might, indeed, constitute sufficient evidence to justify his arrest, and to warrant his committal.
We have, &c.,
The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,
&c.
&c.
&c.
(Signed)
JOHN' HOLKER. HARDINGE S. GIFFARD.
3905.
MY LORD,
No. 88.
(Western Australia.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Herbert's
Temple, 1st April 1876. letter of the 27th January last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a copy of a despatch from the Governor of Western Australia, with its No. 127, enclosures, on a question which had arisen in the case of Gray v. Eliot; and to request 27 Nov.1876. that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion whether the decision of the Chief Justice of the Colony in this case was a right one.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken this matter into our consideration, and have the honour to
Report
That the conviction by the magistrate was right, and in our opinion the goods were "uncustomed."
The Colonial Ordinance provides that entry shall not be valid if goods were not properly described. To hold that these goods were customed would make entry valid. The goods were removed without legal warrant, hence by section 104 they are goods received without payment of duty and therefore Justice of Western Australia argues that the goods were forfeited, and therefore were uncustomed." The Chief not "uncustomed"; we fail to see that consequence. The definitions, in section 111 are not alternative or mutually exclusive.
We have, &c.,
(Signed)
The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,
&c.
&c.
&c.
JOHN HOLKER. HARDINGE S. GIFFARD.
885
▲ 19916.-88. 25,-19/84.
12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO