CO885-(11-13) — Page 235

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

CO.

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

Dominion permitting the printing of such works, whatever may be the con- ditions upon which such permission is granted, will be in direct conflict with the Imperial Statute.

The 10 & 11 Vict. c. 95. contains a provision for the suspension, so far as regards the importing into Canada and the selling, &c. there of the works of British authors, during the continuance of any law or ordinance thereafter to be passed by the Canadian Legislature duly providing for the protection of those authors; but there is no provision in that or any other Statute for abrogating the provisions of the Imperial Copyright Act above referred to, so far as regards the printing of protected works.

There is a recital in the Bill that by the British North American Act, 1867, (30 Vict. c. 3,) express power is given to the Parliament of Canada to legislate upon the subject of copyright; but it is to be observed that the clause (the 91st) containing this provision is one of several having reference (under the sixth general head of the Act) to "the distribution of legislative power," and provides that " amongst other subjects, are to be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada, whilst other copyrights," subjects are (under clause 92) to be exclusively dealt with by the Provincial Legislature.

We have, &c.,

(Signed)

The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,

&c.

&c.

&c.

RICHARD BAGGALLAY.' JOHN HOLKER.

No. 25.

(SIERRA LEONE.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD,

Lincoln's Inn, 15th June 1874. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Herbert's letter of the 29th May ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the accompanying despatch and its enclosures from the Governor of Sierra Leone, respecting the case of Susan and Samuel Reffles, tried for murder in that Colony, and acquitted by direction of the Court.

In that case the injuries of which the murdered person died were inflicted in a place as to which there was evidence to go to the jury that it was British-territory. She died at a place as to which there was no evidence whether it was British territory, but within 20 miles of the territories of Sierra Leone, and therefore within the purview of the Imperial Act 34 Vict. c. 8.

She herself was a person within the purview of that Act as resident in the territories of Sierra Leone. No evidence was offered as to whether the prisoners were British subjects, or persons not the subjects of any civilized power, and so within the purview of that Act.

The trial took place in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, which, by Ordinance No. 4 of 1866, has "cognizance of all pleas in all cases civil or criminal, and jurisdic- tion in all cases whatsoever, as fully and amply to all intents and purposes as Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer at Westminster, or either of them, lawfully have or exercise; and the said Court shall at all times be a Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery in and for the said Settlement and its dependencies."

44

66

16

66

By a local Ordinance, No. of 1862, all laws and statutes which were in force within the realm of England on the 1st of January 1862 (with certain immaterial exceptions) should be deemed and taken to be in force in that Colony, and "applied in "the administration of justice, as far as local circumstances will permit."

This Ordinance was subsequent to the enactment by the Imperial Legislature 24 25 Vict. cap. 100. sec. 10. But the learned judges who composed the Court held that that section could not be applied in the administration of justice in this case, for reasons which will be found in their report, and they likewise held that the prosecution failed under the Imperial Act 34 Vict. cap. 8, as the indictment was not framed specially pleading as averments the facts which give the Court of Sierra Leone juris- diction under that Act; and no evidence having been offered by the Crown either proving that the prisoners were British subjects, or negativing the supposition that they were the subjects of any civilized power,—

That he, Mr. Herbert, was to request that we would take the papers into our con- sideration, and advise your Lordship-

1. Whether, in our opinion, the judgment of the learned judges who composed the Court was right in law?

2. Whether, in cases under the Act 34 Vict. c. 8. the information or indictment must be in special form as ruled by the Court, or whether the common form would suffice?

3. Whether, as it is admitted that the injuries were inflicted within the Settlement, although the death took place beyond the Settlement-whether the prisoners might not have been tried for an aggravated assault, with intent to commit murder or to do grievous bodily harm?

4. Whether, in our opinion, the Imperial Act 34 Vict. c. 8. should be amended; and, if so, that your Lordship would be much obliged if we would point out what amend- ments should be made?

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

That-

Report

1. The judges who composed the Court at Sierra Leone appear to us to have been right in deciding that there was no evidence that Tiekidaugay's house was within British territory.

▲ 19916.-26. 25-13/84.