69
8999
(No. 48.)
SIR,
No. 61.
GOVERNOR SIR C. BRUCE to MR. CHAMBERLAIN.
(Received March 9, 1903.)
Government House, Mauritius, February 5, 1903. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt, on the 31st ultimo, of your telegram of the date previous, in the following terms:-
"Referring to your despatch, No. 460, Ordinance 34 should be amended by substituting for last five words, first sub-section, section four, following words, by advertisement in the "Times"
in England." newspaper 2. In reply I transmitted to you, on the 4th instant,† the following message:- "Referring to your telegram of 30th January, no advances will be made under Ordinance No. 34 until amended in accordance with your instructions,” and no advances will be made under the Ordinance until this is done.
3. The Council of Government is now out of session, but I shall call a special meeting in a few days for the purpose of passing the required amending Ordinance.
4. I hope at the same time to be able to deal finally with the question whether I should ask you to authorise additional advances under Article 2 of the Ordinance. Up to this date the applications for loans amount to Rs. 2,303,539, and I am informed that further applications will be sent in. I am, however, unable to say at present to what extent the applications received can be entertained in accordance with the conditions which I have laid down as essential in order to secure my approval.
I have, &c.,
CHAS. BRUCE,
Governor.
the two Planters' Loans not being made by notarial deed. The matter was very fully considered at the time, and I communicated the opinion at which I had arrived to Executive Council, that a notarial deed was not necessary. But as there is no written record of my opinion, I think it advisable to record it.
The two main considerations were that a deed which I could prepare in the schedule, and which should only be a sous-seing privé, would be less costly, as it would avoid the notaries' ad valorem charges, and also would be made speedier for execution. I doubt very much whether I could have prepared a form of notarial deed in the schedule, as such documents do not lend themselves easily to such treatment. Convenience was in favour of the sous-seing privé. As to the legality of such a document, there could be no question; the contract charge not being a mortgage, the article of the Civil Code which requires mortgages to be by notarial deed does not apply.
There are, however, two advantages of a notarial deed, which required very careful consideration. The first arises from the great care with which notarial deeds are preserved; the loss or destruction of a contract charge deed would be very serious, if we had no official and authentic duplicate; this was met by the third paragraph of Article 16 (4), which makes the entry in the Conservator's books the equivalent of the original.
Now, with regard to the signatures. The fact of the identity of the signatory is attested by the notary, and the signature cannot be afterwards attacked except on the ground of fraud. The fact that the deed has been passed before a notary is evidence that a certain person has signed. But it is not the only evidence that can be produced; it is not possible that any signatures could be challenged at any time in the case of any of the transactions under either of the loans; the mere fact that the money has been paid into the applicant's banking account by cheque would be sufficient; then in every case there are notarial extracts a tached to the deed linking the applicant to the deed, and many other facts which would demonstrate that such and such person was the person who in fact signed the deed. At the time I gave the advice that a notarial deed was unnecessary, I was satisfied that the guarantees were complete, and I am still of the same opinion.
9003
No. 62.
GOVERNOR SIR C. BRUCE to MR. CHAMBERLAIN.
F. T. PIGGOTT,
Procureur-General.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
6
19
Reference :-
C.O. 882
8
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
(No. 52.)
SIR,
1
No. 460, 27 December, 1902.
No. 466, 27 December, 1902,
(Received March 9, 1903.)
Government House, Mauritius, February 7, 1903. WITH reference to my despatches, I noted in the margin, forwarding "The
Mechanical Transport Loan Ordinance," and
"The Sugar Estates (Advances in Aid) Ordinance, 1902," and to previous correspondence on the subject, I have the honour to inform you that, a doubt having been expressed as to the legality of the contracts for advances under these Ordinances not being made by notarial deed, I drew the Procureur-General's attention to the point.
2. I now transmit a copy of a Minute by Mr. Piggott, in which he adheres to the opinion he gave in Executive Council, when the draft Ordinance was being con- sidered, that a notarial deed is not necessary, and that, as to the legality of the form of contract adopted there can be no question.
I have, &c.,
CHAS. BRUCE,
Governor.
Enclosure in No. 62.
PROCUREUR-GENERAL to COLONIAL SECRETARY.
February 4, 1903.
His Excellency has drawn my attention to an article in the "Radical," which throws doubt on-as I understand it-the legality of the contracts for advances on
• No. 42.
† No. 49.
‡ Nos. 39 and 40.
10310
SIR,
(No. 58.)
No. 63.
GOVERNOR SIR C. BRUCE to MR. CHAMBERLAIN. (Received March 19, 1903.)
[Acknowledged March 25, 1903, No. 69: 10310: not printed.]
Government House, Mauritius, February 12, 1903. REFERRING to your telegram, dated the 30th January last, and to previous correspondence on the subject of assisting the sugar industry by advances for the cultivation of estates, I have the honour to submit the following observations :-
2. Ordinance No. 43 of 1902 authorises a loan of £200,000 for the purpose of making temporary advances to sugar estates and "Bailleurs de Fonds "; and under this Ordinance applications have been received for the following advances :-
Rs. 603,781. Rs. 2,423,123
Rs. 3,026,907
From owners of sugar estates From Bailleurs de fonds...
Total
3. The Loan Board is examining the applications, and should the advances otherwise approved be in excess of the available proceeds of the loan, a pro rata reduction will be made on all those above Rs. 25,000 to bring the amount to be advanced within the available amount which will be subject to deductions on account
• No. 43.
70
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.