PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
LEC.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
have been, or should be, authorised to raise by tray of lor, and that it appeared, therefore, doubtful whether further legislation was not required to enable the Government to create and issue Inscribed Stock for the purpose of being substituted for the Railway Bonds.
That Mr. Wingfield was to request us to advise you
-
1. Whether the Government of Jamaica could fulfil its obligation under Section 152 of the Law and Clause 23 of the Agreement by issuing to the First Mortgage Bond- holders Inscribed Stock to be issued in Jamaica under the Local Inscribed Stock Law, or any other Law to be enacted authorising the issue of such Stock for that purpose.
2. Whether the Inscribed Stock to be issued to the Bondholders (whether issued in London or in Jamaica) might be made redeemable at an earlier date than the date at which the First Mortgage Bonds were redeemable.
3. Whether Inscribed Stock could be issued to the Bondholders either in London under the Inscribed Stock Law, 1885, or in Jamaica under the Local Inscribed Stock Law, 1891, or whether further legislation was necessary to enable such Stock to be issued either in London or in the Colony.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obe lience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
1. THAT we think that the Stock to be issued under Section 152 of the Act of 1889 is Stock under Law 13 of 1885, and not under the subsequent Local Inscribed Stock Law.
2. We think the Stock may be redeemable at an earlier date than the Mortgage Bonds. Indeed, if it had become issuable before 1895 it could not have been issued for 1945 under the Law of 1885. So long as it is issued in accordance with the latter Law
the Bondholders must accept it.
3. No further legislation is necessary to enable Stock to be issned. The Act of 1889 authorises the issue to the Bondholders as to lenders by enacting that the Court may decree the issue. It can be issued in London under the Law of 1885.
The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P'.,
&c.,
&c.,
&e.
1
We have, &e.,
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
12774.
SIR,
No. 212.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
19th May, 1899.
WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Graham's letter of the 4th instant, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us a copy of a despatch from the High Comunissioner for South Africa, enclosing a letter from Mrs. Edgar, in which she requested that Her Majesty's Government would present to the Government of the South African Republic a claim for compensation to her on account of the death of her husband, who was shot by a police constable in Johannesburg on 18th of December last.
the
That, the circumstances under which Mr. Edgar met his death were fully set forth in the Judge's notes taken at the trial of the police constable in question on the 23rd February, 1899; and that Mr. Graham was accordingly to transmit to us a containing a despatch from the High Commissioner, dated 29th March, together with a print copy of the Judge's notes above referred to, and also a newspaper report of the case and articles thereon.
That a print of a confidential despatch from the High Commissioner, dated 8th March, 1899, commenting on the circumstances of the case, was also enclosed.
That Mr. Graham was to request us to take the papers into our consideration and to advise you :-
1. Whether Her Majesty's Government would be justified in presenting to the Government of the South African Republic a claim for compensation on behalf of Mrs. Edgar.
2. If so, upon what grounds such claim should be based ?
3. What answer should be returned to Mrs. Edgar?
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
1. THAT, in our opinion. Her Majesty's Government would be justified in presenting to the South African Republic a claim for compensation on behalf of Mrs. Edgar. The fact that Jones was acquitted on the criminal charge seems to be no answer to any such ́· demand. The Court or the Jury may, on such charge, take a merciful view of the conduct of the accused, but an acquittal would be no answer to a claim for damages by those who were interested in the life of the deceased.
As a matter of fact it appears to us that there was a clear miscarriage of justice ou the criminal trial. We have no sufficient instructions as to the law of the South African Republic, but if, as appears to have been assumed at the trial, it is on this point identical with that of England, it appears to us that on any reasonable view of the facts the conduct of the police admitted of no justification. To justify breaking into a dwelling- house in order to effect an arrest, police, unless armed with a warrant, must prove that a felony had in fact been committed. Here there had been nothing beyond a common assault and the man lying in the street was drunk, not dead, as might have been ascertained by the most cursory examination.
Under these circumstances Edgar would have been justified in using any reasonable amount of force to expel the police who had broken into his house. We must further observe that, even if the entry could be justified by the law of the South African Republic, there is no possible justification for shooting Edgar dead. There were four policemen, besides several sympathisers; on the other side there were only Edgar and his wife. To shoot him dead, even if it be true that he had used a stick, was a mere outrage.
2878-25-3 99
Wt 439 D&S