PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
mmimmim
Reference :-
C.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
3. The Patents, &c., Act has no application to the Colonies, and, so far as the invention is used in the United Kingdom for the purpose of supply to the Indian or Colonial Governments, otherwise than through a Home Government department, terms for such user must be made by these Governments.
4. If articles the subject of a patent are made in this country for Indian or Colonial Governments, the patentees would be entitled to sue the persons so using the invention in this country for infringement. But if the articles are being made to the order of a department of the Home Government, although for supply to the Indian
or Colonial Governments, patentees must seek their remedy under section 27, although no specific terms applicable to the supply of these Governments had been made.
The adjustment of terms with a department of the Home Government for the use of the invention for the service of Her Majesty would cover manufacture or supply to the order of the War Office for the use of these Governments, unless this had been specially excluded by the terms.
5. The contractor could plead that he was acting as an agent for the Secretary of State for War, if the goods were ordered by him, though intended for the service of Her Majesty in India or the Colonies by being supplied to the Government there.
6. No.
7. Does not arise.
8. We have nothing to add.
Law Officers' Department,
8th August 1896.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
ROBERT B. FINLAY.
17001.
No. 115.
(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, August 12, 1896.
SIR,
We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Fairfield's letter of the 31st ultimo, stating that you had directed him to lay before us the enclosed copies of correspondence with the Governor of the Straits Settlements, on the subject of a proposal for the mutual extradition between that Colony and Kedah of labourers who had broken their contracts of service in the Colony and escaped to Kedah, or vice versâ, and of previous correspondence on the same subject in 1888.
That by the law of the Straits Settlements and by the law of Kedah certain breaches of labour contracts were criminal offences. That the planters in the Colony would Buffer great loss if the labourers employed under contract could abscond with impunity by escaping into Kedah. That, theretofore, the authorities in Kedah had surrendered such fugitives, but that it could not be expected that they would continue to do so, unless the Colonial authorities would reciprocally surrender labourers who absconded from plantations in Kedah and escaped into the Colony.
That by the Straits Extradition Order in Council of the 19th August 1889 the Governor of the Colony was empowered to extradite to Foreign States, in the case to ग which the Extradition Act, 1870, did not apply, persons accused or convicted of certain crimes committed in such States, and that in the case of the Native States in the Malayan Peninsula, which were under British protection, and in the case of Johore, breach of contract of service which would be penishable in the Colony by fine or imprisonment if committed there was made an extradition crime.
That the Governor's proposal was, that the Order in Council should be amended by extending the latter provision to the case of Kedah.
That Kedah was part of the dominions of the King of Siam, and that Article V. of the Treaty between Great Britain and Siam of the 6th May 1869 contained an agree- ment for the mutual extradition of persons convicted of, or charged with, certain crimes escaping from British territory into Kedah or vice versâ.
That it had been suggested that a further agreement might be made with Siam extending Article V. of the Treaty of 1869 so as to add criminal breach of contract of service to the extradition crimes specified therein, but that the Foreign Office considered that extradition arrangements with Foreign States should be confined in their operation to the crimes specified in the Extradition Acts, 1870 and 1873, and that there were objections to negotiating extradition treaties with countries in which the Queen exercised extra-territorial jurisdiction over her own subjects.
That the Foreign Office also objected to the proposed extension of the Straits Order in Council so as to authorise extradition to Kedah for the offence of breach of contract on the ground that, in the absence of an extradition agreement, extradition to Kedah would not be justifiable, and they suggested that, as most of the labourers employed, under contract in Kedah were said to be British subjects, the matter might be arranged so far as such British subjects were concerned by the operation of the Fugitive Offenders' Act, 1881.
That the Queen exercised jurisdiction in Siam under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, and the exercise of that jurisdiction was regulated by the Siam Order in Council, 1889, and courts under that Order had been established in Kedah.
That by the Siam Order in Council, 1889 (Article 57), the Fugitive Offenders' Act, 1881, was applied to Siam, as if Siam were a British possession, subject to cortain qualifications, one of which was, that it should apply only in the case of British subjects, and Siam and the Colony of the Straits Settlements were declared to be deemed to be one group of British possessions for the purposes of Part II. of the Act. That it was presumed, therefore, that a British subject charged with an offence committed in Kedah and punishable under the Siam Order in Council could be ordered to be returned from the Colony to Kedah under the Fugitive Offenders' Act.
That breach of contract of service did not appear to be an offence punishable under the Siam Order in Council as defined in Article 33, as it was not punishable in England on indictment, and was not declared by the Siam Order in Council, or by any regulation made by virtue of that Order to be punishable as an offence against that Order; but it was suggested that a regulation might be made under Article 84 of the
0 90536.-27. 25.-8/96.
PUBLIC
RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
minimmim
TLC.O. 885
COPYRIGHT
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
No. 115.
(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)
OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, August 12, 1896. rith your commands, signified in Mr. Fairfield's letter of you had directed him to lay before us the enclosed copies Governor of the Straits Settlements, on the subject of a adition between that Colony and Kedah of labourers who service in the Colony and escaped to Kedah, or vice versâ, ace on the same subject in 1888.
raits Settlements and by the law of Kedah certain breaches iminal offences. That the planters in the Colony would ers employed under contract could abscond with impunity hat, theretofore, the authorities ir Kedah had surrendered ould not be expected that they would continue to do so, es would reciprocally surrender labourers who absconded ad escaped into the Colony.
adition Order in Council of the 19th August 1889 the empowered to extradite to Foreign States, in the case/to 870, did not apply, persons accused or convicted of certain itates, and that in the case of the Native States in the ere under British protection, and in the case of Johore,
se which would be punishable in the Colony by fine or hore was made an extradition crime. sal was, that the Order in Council should be amended by a to the case of Kedah.
he dominions of the King of Siam, and that Article V. of itain and Siam of the 6th May 1869 contained an agree- ion of persons convicted of, or charged with, certain crimes ry into Kedah or vice versa.
ed that a further agreement might be made with Siam 'reaty of 1869 so as to add criminal breach of contract of nes specified therein, but that the Foreign Office considered s with Foreign States should be confined in their operation le Extradition Acts, 1870 and 1873, and that there were xtradition treaties with countries in which the Queen isdiction over her own subjects.
30 objected to the proposed extension of the Straits Order extradition to Kedah for the offence of breach of contract
osence of an extradition agreement, extradition to Kedah they suggested that, as most of the labourers employed, › said to be British subjects, the matter might be arranged ects were concerned by the operation of the Fugitive
jurisdiction in Siam under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, liction was regulated by the Siam Order in Council, 1889, had been established in Kedah,
n Council, 1889 (Article 57), the Fugitive Offenders' Act, as if Siam were a British possession, subject to certain was, that it should apply only in the case of British Colony of the Straits Settlements were declared to be ritish possessions for the purposes of Part II. of the Act. refore, that a British subject charged with an offence ishable under the Siam Order in Council could be ordered
y to Kedah under the Fugitive Offenders' Act. service did not appear to be an offence punishable under as defined in Article 33, as it was not punishable in ras not declared by the Siam Order in Council, or by any that Order to be punishable as an offence against that that a regulation might be made under Article 84 of the