CO885-(11-13) — Page 469

│ ?| །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

CO. 885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

1

7. In our view the Proclamation No. 71 is to be taken as substituted for Ordi- nance No. 3.

If thie view be correct, the Government have not the powers given by Article 19 of that Ordinance.

8 and 9. We think the Company may make what charges they like for stands, buildings, areas, and other accommodation required by the wishers (workers ?) of claims, but we do not see that there is any obligation on the Government to collect such charges. We are unable to find the Confidential Paper No. 61 referred to in question 8. Lastly, we think it would be advisable to pass a law in the Colony relieving the Government from all obligation to collect the rents which the owners of lands, who are also entitled to the precious stones, may reserve.

The Right Hon.

Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bart.,

&c. &c.

&c.

We have, &c. (Signed)

JOHN HOLKER. HARDINGE S. GIFFARD.

No. 212a.

(CYPRUS.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

MY LORD,

We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir Julian

Temple, December 29, 1879. Pauncefote's letter of the 19th December instant, stating that he had the honour to transmit to us, by direction of your Lordship, the papers noted in the margin* relating to the trial and conviction, before Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Cyprus, of a man named Sawas Christodoulos (commonly called Sawas), who was alleged to be a Greek subject.

That that man was charged with the murder of a Turkish zaptieh or officer of police. That the trial took place before the Judicial Commissioner with assessors, as provided by section 18 of the High Court of Justice Ordinance, and the accused, having been found guilty, was sentenced to death.

That the two assessors, who were Greek subjects, objected to the finding and sentence of the Court, and their objection was recorded in the minutes of the proceedings, as provided by section 7 of the Ordinance.

That the Greek Vice-Consul at Larnaka raised various objections to the regularity of the trial; and urgent representations having been addressed by the Greek Minister in London to your Lordship to obtain a respite of the sentence pending further inquiry, your Lordship instructed the High Commissioner to suspend its execution, and to transmit forthwith a report on the case, for the consideration of Her Majesty's Govern- ment, in the manner prescribed by section 33 of the Ordinance.

That at that time it was assumed that Sawas was a Greek subject. That the High Commissioner's report has now been received, and though the minutes of proceedings at the trial and the notes of evidence were not yet transmitted, the covering despatch of the High Commissioner (No. 188, of the 26th November), and a previous despatch from Colonel Edridge, the Acting High Commissioner (No. 173, of the 15th November), gave rise to grave doubts as to whether, apart from the merits of the case and the representations of the Greek Government, the trial was not altogether illegal, having regard to the provisions of the Ordinance.defining the limits of the jurisdiction to be exercised by the High Court of Justice.

That it appeared from the High Commissioner's despatch, No. 188, that Sawas was a natural-born Ottoman subject, and that he was claimed as a Greek subject on the ground that he obtained Greek naturalization; but by Turkish law such naturalization was inoperative without the sanction of the Turkish authorities, and no proof had been adduced of such sanction having been obtained by Sawas. That it was presumed, therefore, that he must be treated as a Turkish subject for all purposes while within Turkish territory. That on that point he was to refer us to Colonel Edridge's despatch, No. 171, of the 12th November.

That it appeared also, from the High Commissioner's despatch, No. 188, that the proceedings against Sawas were originally instituted in the proper Ottoman Court, but the Greek Vice-Consul having claimed him as a Greek subject by reason of his alleged Greek naturalization, the trial was transferred to the High Court by the Judicial Com- missioner proprio motu, and not by the High Commissioner on the petition of the accused, as provided by section 108 (b) of the Ordinance.

That the reason of that proceeding appeared, from Colonel Edridge's despatch, No. 173, in which we would find a minute on the jurisdiction of the High Court by Mr. Phillips, the legal adviser of the Government of Cyprus, who also discharged the functions of Judicial Commissioner, and who, in that capacity, presided at the trial of Sawas.

That in that minute the legal adviser stated that he had adopted a construction of section 10 of the High Court of Justice Ordinance at variance with the views expressed in the Foreign Office despatch No. 45, of the 14th July 1879.

+

High Court of Justice Ordinance; to Colonel Greaves, No. 45, July 14; Colonel Edridge, No. 171, November 12; ditto, No. 178, November 15; Major-General Biddulph, No. 188, November 26, 1879; Férand- Giraud, vols. I. and II.

▲ 20491.-21. 25.-6/96.