R
Vī
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
سلسلانسيا
Reference :-
C.O.885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
some Mauritius law differing from English law upon this point.. That, for example, if the plate were proved to have been lost the defendant might contend that, according to the law of Mauritius, the finder obtained a good title against everybody including the original owner and not, as under English law, against everybody except the original owner.
That it was, of course, quite true that the revenues of Mauritius would not be prejudiced if this plate were now used to reproduce the stamps of, 1847, but that you were of opinion, that, the attention of the Colonial Office having been specifically directed to the matter, every effort should be made to prevent the possibility of this fraud being perpetrated in future.
That Mr. Read was accordingly to request us to take the papers into our consideration and to report :-
1. Whether the fact (if that be established) that the plate was originally Crown property, and was moreover of such a nature that it might be said to bear that fact on its face, was sufficient to put a de facto possessor thereof to the proof of his title, or whether the onus was on the Crown to prove that it had never in any way lost its original property in the plate, and therefore was entitled to immediate possession
thereof.
2. Whether the question whether, on the facts proved, any interruption of the Crown's original title occurred in Mauritius would fall to be determined by the law of England or that of Mauritius.
3. What would be the rights of the Crown with regard to the plate according to English law if evidence should be available to show that the plate had been-
(a) lost, or
(b) handed over to an official for destruction, or left in his custody, and in either case innocently retained by him through carelessness or forget- fulness, or
(c) stolen or embezzled, regard being had to the apparent impossibility of now
obtaining a conviction against the offender.
That the Governor had been requested to furnish a report by the Procureur- General showing what would be the rights of the Crown in the above circumstances according to the law of Mauritius.
In the event of there being no prospect of success in an action for the wrongful detention of the plate or any other legal proceedings for its recovery, what further course of action would be possible or expedient in the circumstances.
We were further honoured with a letter from Mr. H. J. Read, dated the 25th November, 1912, enclosing a copy of a letter from the Honorary Secretary to the Royal Philatelic Society, explaining the grounds upon which he based his statement that the plate of the stamps in question was the property of the Colonial Govern-
ment.
We have also the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Sir H. W. Just's letter of the 22nd April last, transmitting to us a despatch from the Governor of Mauritius covering the original receipt from Mr. J. Barnard for the payment made to him by the Government of the Colony for the " press and plate for the letter labels" and a report from the Procureur-General on the legal position of the matter according to the law of the Colony.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
1. That, once it is established that the plate was originally Crown property, as can be done by means of the receipt of Mr. J. Barnard, the engraver, the onus of showing that the property has passed from the Crown lies upon the person seeking to retain it.
2 and 3. The question whether, on the facts proved, any interruption of the Crown's original title occurred in Mauritius would fall to be determined by the law of Mauritius.
4. Assuming that the plate, when it arrived in England, was still the property of the Crown, neither Colonel Colnaghi nor any of the subsequent holders had any title to it, and the plate can be recovered in detinue from Mr. Loder.
5. The question whether a title was acquired by anyone in Mauritius-- depending, as it appears to do, upon whether anyone acquired it in good faith- cannot be answered with certainty until the history of the plate whilst in Mauritius
3
is definitely ascertained. The fact that the plate is prima facie Government pro- perty is no doubt a difficulty which anyone attempting to establish that he took it in good faith would have to surmount, but we cannot say that that fact alone conclu- sively establishes that no one could have taken it in good faith.
We have, &c.,
The Right Honourable
Lewis Harcourt, M.P.,
Colonial Office, S.W.
RUFUS D. ISAACS JOHN SIMON.
コ
:
}
•
: