CO885-(13-15) — Page 316

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

וורן וגיוווווווד

9

Reference :-

C.O. 8

885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

Sweden, Austria-Hungary, Brazil, France, Switzerland, Spain, &c. That an exception to that rule, however, was to be found in the Treaty with the Netherlands of the 19th June 1874, which was worded so as to include crimes committed within the jurisdiction of the requiring party territories of the other party." That that might possibly have been due to a printer's by persons who shall be found within the error in reprinting revises of the draft Treaty. That there was nothing in the archives of the Foreign Office to explain it.

That a question arose in 1873 as to whether the Extradition Treaties concluded by this country would apply in the case of a person who, having committed a crime in a foreign country, should seek refuge within the extra-territorial jurisdiction of Great Britain. That the point was submitted to the Law Officers, who reported, on the ith June 1873 against the surrender of such a person by the Judge of British Consular Court, one of the reasons given for their opinion being that the Extradition. Act applied to Her Majesty's dominions and possessions only. That the point was the converse of that which had now arisen.

That the Report of the 6th June 1873 was sent to the Home Office in connection with certain proposed amendments of the Extradition Act, which wore then under consideration, and that the Secretary of State replied that it was not considered desirable to extend the Bill for amending the Extradition Act so as to place the extra- territorial jurisdiction possessed by Her Majesty in Turkey in the same position with respect to the surrender of fugitive criminals as if such jurisdiction were co-equal in extent and character with that possessed in this regard by Her Majesty in a British Colony or possession.

That Sir Thomas Sanderson was to add that no application had ever been made by Her Majesty's Government to that of the United States for the extradition from the United States territory of a British subject who had, in some country where Her Majesty possessed extra-territorial jurisdiction, committed an offence which would have been, if done within the British dominions, an extradition offence.

That Sir Thomas Sanderson was to request that we would take the papers inclosed with his letter into our consideration, and that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the point more particularly submitted, and also, at the same time. with any general observations which we might have to offer in connection with the papers.

Having taken the matter into our consideration, we have the honour to

Report

That in our opinion the Extradition Treaties and "The Extradition Act of 1870 are intended to insure mutual assistance to the contracting parties to each Treaty for the purpose of enabling them to enforce, in the cases provided for, the criminal law of their own country, and do not extend to cases where the Powers have obtained juris- diction in the dominions of another Sovereign. We are of opinion, therefore, that such a case as that of Miller--where the United States' Representative called upon the British Colonial authorities to surrender a fugive criminal to be dealt with under the United States extra-territorial jurisdiction in Japan-is not provided for by the Treaty of 1842 or the Act of 1870.

List of Papers.

(A.) Colonial Office (and three enclosures)

(B.) Treaty with United States

(C.) 6 & 7 Vict., cap. 76.

(D.) 6 & 7 Vict., cap. 75.

We have, &c.

(Signed)

(E.) Extradition Act, 1870" (33 & 34 Vict., cap. 52).

(F.) Extradition Treaty with Germany

(H.) Law Officers' Report

(G.)

19

""

Netherlands

C. RUSSELL. JOHN RIGBY.

December 15, 1892. August

9, 1842.

May June

14. 1872.

19, 1874.

June

6, 1873.

3573.

No. 30.

3:

(Grenada and ST. VINCENT.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE. MY LORD,

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

Royal Courts of Justice, March 2, 1893. letter of the 29th December last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to inform us that a question had recently arisen regarding the validity of certain marriages which were celebrated by Roman Catholic priests without banns or license in two of the Windward Islands, Grenada and St. Vincent.

That the Islands' Laws bearing on the subject, and which are enclosed herewith, were -St. Vincent No. 40 of 1841, No. 10 of 1889; Grenada No. 12 of 1841, No. 79 of 1865, No. 156 of 1875. That in St. Vincent by section 5 of the Law of 1889 a penalty of 50l. was attached to the celebrations of any marriages contrary to law.

That the English Marriage Acts had not been extended by local legislation to either Islands, and that the Act of 1841 of each Island appeared to be an enabling Act extending to ministers of all denominations the power of publishing banns and cele- brating marriages. Our attention was directed to section 9 of both Acts requiring that marriages should be solemnized with open doors and within certain hours (conditions which were understood to have been complied with) and that an entry should be made in the register stating inter alia that the marriage was had by banns or license. neither Act, however, appeared to state in express terms that a marriage was invalid That without banns or license.

That in St. Vincent by a subsequent ordinance (copy enclosed), No. 14 of 1887, it was provided (sec. 27) that in all marriages which might be legally solemnized in the Colony the parties were to obtain a certificate in a specified form, and that that form seemed to have been given in the cases of the persons whose marriages were now in question; but that that fact did not appear to affect the case.

That Mr. Bramston was to request us to furnish your Lordship with our opinion. (1.) Whether marriages celebrated without banns or license were invalid in St. Vincent? (2.) Whether such marriages were invalid in Grenada?

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

Report

That in our opinion, both in St. Vincent and Grenada, the English Common Law

80

as to marriages would seem to have been in force except so far as modified by Colonjal Act.

By Ordinance 101 of 1807 (Grenada) it was in substance provided that marriages were to be solemnized by the rectors of the parishes in the Island, and all not solemnized were to be null and void. Roman Catholic priests were, however, authorized to celebrate marriages without banns or license, but such marriages were to confer no civil rights. We have not been able to ascertain when (if at all) the Ordinance was repealed. It is not reproduced in the volume professing to contain the existing laws of the Colony. If it is still in force it governs the case of marriages in Grenada solemnized by Roman Catholic priests without banns or license.

We have found no trace of any similar Act having been passed in St. Vincent. Assuming that the English Common Law prevailed there marriages per verba de presenti soleninized by a Roman Catholic priest would have been valid before 1841, and the same would have been the case in Grenada if the Ordinance of 1807 had been repealed. In order to invalidate such marriages in either Colony it would have to be shown that the Acts, that is to say, No. 40 of St. Vincent, and No. 12 of Grenada, 1841 (the other enactments referred to not appearing to us to be material), not only did not authorize, but absolutely made void such marriages, and we do not think that on their true construction they can be taken to do so.

Practically the operation aud effect of the two Acts are the same, and although the validity of the marriages in question cannot be supported by these Acts, and the solemnization of any marriage contrary to law is in St. Vincent visited with a penalty, we do not find anything which should render the marriages void.

We are therefore of opinion :--

(1.) That the marriages are not invalid in St. Vincent;

(2.) Nor in Grenada, if the Act of 1807 is not still in force. If it is, the marriages, though not illegal, would not confer any civil rights.

0 74772.-9. 25,-8/93.