CO885-(13-15) — Page 126

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

5. Whether the facts of the Colonial Government having requested Mr. Barnard to build a petroleum warehouse on the part of the Queen's Chain in his possession, and having paid him rent for that warehouse, and having paid him for stone taken from the Queen's Chain for the harbour works, affected the right of the Crown to resume possession?

6. Whether, so far as appeared from the papers enclosed, the Crown was entitled to resume possession of so much of the Queen's Chain adjoining the harbour of Castrica as was in the possession of-

(1.) Mr. Barnard,

(2.) Mr. Langellier?

That Mr. Wingfield was further to request that we would favour your Lordship with any observations on the rights of the Crown in relation to the Queen's Chain in St. Lucia which we might think desirable.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to-

Report

1. That, in our opinion, the Queen's Chain in St. Lucia, except such parts of it as were granted by the Crown of France, or have been granted by the Crown of England, is part of the domain of the Crown.

2. The title of the Crown to the Queen's Chain cannot be defeated by prescription. but acts of ownership may be evidence of a lost grant whereby the Crown has parted with part of the property.

3. In the absence of proof of a grant, or such evidence as will support the presumption of a lost grant, the Crown can resume possession for the purpose of asserting title, or for any public use.

4 and 5. In our opinion, the documents submitted to us, and facts admitted, afford substantial evidence of a lost grant. We do not say that evidence is conclusive, but, having regard to all the circumstances, we are of opinion that while Mr. Barnard's title should not be admitted, it is a case in which he should receive compensation.

6. As regards Mr. Barnard, we think the Crown should not proceed to resume possession.

As regards Mr. Langellier, the documents and facts at present before us are not sufficient to establish his claim. and, in the absence of further evidence, the Crown can resume possession.

The Right Hon.

Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G..

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c.. (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.

EDWARD CLARKE,

14,110.

No. 155A.

(BRITISH HONDURAS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE. Mr LORD,

We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's

Royal Courts of Justice, July 13, 1889. letter of the 21st ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a copy of a despatch from the Governor of British Honduras, in which, in con- sequence of the conflicting opinions (copies of which were enclosed) of the late Attorney-General and the present Acting Attorney-General of the Colony, he requested to be furnished with our opinion upon the question whether certain property, conveyed by a deed (a copy of which was also enclosed) on trust for the benefit of Jane Emily Rosado, escheated to the Crown on the death of Jane Emily Rosado intestate anil without heirs.

That your Lordship would be obliged if we would give you our opinion upon the matter in question.

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

Report

That, in our opinion, assuming the law in British Honduras, prior to 1882, to be the same as in England, prior to the year 1884, the estate of Jane Emily Rosado, being equitable only, did not escheat to the Crown upon her death.

The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G., &c. &c. &c.

Mr LORD,

We have, &c., (Signed)

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.

SIR R. T. GOLDSWORTHY to LORD KNUTSFORD.

I HAVE the honour to forward to your Lordship correspondence in connexion

Government House, Belize, May 23, 1889. with certain property held by James Harley and J. M. Currie in trust for Jane E. Rosado, deceased, together with the opinion of late Attorney-General Schooles, and also that of Acting Attorney-General Logan as to whether the right of escheat to the Crown exists.

Some time back the present occupier of the property, the half-sister of the deceased. applied to me personally in reference to this matter, and by my advice wrote to the official Administrator on the subject.

Nothing, however, apparently was done until application was made to me on her behalf by her son, and as the opinion of the Acting Attorney-General differs from that of Mr. Schooles, I think it desirable to ask your Lordship to obtain the views of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject.

The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.,

have, &c.,

(Signed) ROGER TUCKFIELD GOLDSWORTHY,

Governor.

&c.

&c. &c.

OPINION of Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL SCHOOLES.

From the facts before me it appears that in the year 1875 certain real property in Belize which was vested in one Israel Meighan, as a trustee for Llewellyn Maximilian Arthurs, having, however, a power under the trust deed to sell, was conveyed to James Harley and James McMurrich Currie by the said Israel Meighan as trustees for one Jane Emily Rosado.

57014.-27. 25.-7/89.