R
34098.
SIR,
No. 55.
(BRITISH HONDURAS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
October 18, 1900.
We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Lucas's letter of the 19th ultimo, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us for our consideration :— (I.) A despatch from the Governor of British Honduras, dated 23rd August, 1900, relative to the case of four persons whose extradition had been demanded by the Mexican Government under the provisions of the treaty made between Great Britain and the United States of Mexico in September, 1886, and who were now under arrest at Belize.
(II.) The original proceedings taken before the Acting District Commissioner at Belize upon the application made for extradition.
(III.) The report made by the Attorney-General of British Honduras to the Governor on the case.
(IV.) A copy of the Extradition Treaty of September, 1886, made between Great Britain and the United States of Mexico.
(V.) Copy of the Extradition Act, 1870.
(VI.) Draft of Secretary of State's proposed telegram and despatch to Officer Administering the Government of British Honduras.
(VII.) Copy of Secretary of State's letter to the Foreign Office; and, (VIII) Copy of reply of Foreign Office thereto.
Sept. 11, 1900.
i
That Mr. Lucas was to ask, us to be good enough to take these papers into our Sept. 17, consideration, and to advise you,
(1.) Whether larceny of his uniform by a fugitive soldier or sailor was an extra- ditable offence according to English law, or to the law of her Colonies having a similar system of criminal jurisprudence.
(2.) Whether we concurred in the proposed reply of the Secretary of State to the Officer Administering the Government of British Honduras, or if not,
(3.) Generally, as to what reply should be returned.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and in obedience to your commands have the honour to
Report-
1. That, we think that under ordinary circumstances a deserter would not properly he found guilty of larceny in respect of the uniform which he was wearing at the time of his desertion. The uniform is accessory to his person, and in ordinary cases the proper inference would be that he took it with him, not with the felonious intention of appro- priating it, but because he was wearing it at the time, and could not go without it.
There might of course be special circumstances from which such a felonious intent might be inferred, as if, for instance, the deserter afterwards sold the uniform in question. There are, however, no such special circumstances in this case, and we do not think that extradition for larceny should be granted if it be the case that the only articles that the deserters took with them were those that they were wearing at the time. There is, upon the evidence, nothing to show whether this be the case or not. It is not proved that the articles found in their possession were those that they were wearing at the time of desertion, and there is no satisfactory evidence that the men took with them any other article. We think that some enquiry should be made on this point, and unless there is some evidence to show that the prisoners took other articles of property of the Mexican Government with them, or feloniously converted those that they were wearing, extradition shomkd not be grantel.
72-25-19,1900 Wt 821 D&S 6
1900.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
2 and 3. We suggest that instead of the proposed replies, there should be sent a telegram and despatch in the sense of our answer to the first question. We have prepared drafts herewith.
The Right Honourable J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c. &c.
&c.
}