CO885-(15-16) — Page 437

R

by the prisoner became widely known before the second trial, but, assuming such to be the case, we are unable to express any opinion whether or not the result of the trial was affected thereby.

(2.) Some of the passages excised from the proof of Frances Dean were, in our opinion, clearly material, and we think that a copy of the proof should have been served upon the defence without such excision.

The Crown Solicitor is the person responsible for the service of the proof from which material passages had been excised, but while we think that he was guilty of a serious error of judgment in this respect, we cannot, on the facts before us, impute to him any improper intention.

(3.) We agree with the opinion of the Chief Justice that the verdict is sustain- able as a matter of law, but the evidence was purely circumstantial and, without depreciating the value of such evidence, we think that the circumstances proved do not clearly indicate the part taken by Jones in the commission of the crime, and, indeed, leave open to doubt whether she was a principal or an accessory before or after the fact.

In view of this state of the evidence we think it not improbable that, had the proof of Frances Dean without the excision of material parts been in the possession of the prisoner's advisers in time to allow of its full consideration, the defence might have been so conducted as to obtain an acquittal. These considerations, in our opinion, afford some ground for remission of sentence even should the result be the escape of a person against whom a sustainable verdict has been found.

The Right Honourable

The Earl of Elgin, K.G.,

&c., &c.,

&c.

We have, &c.,

JOHN L. WALTON. W. S. ROBSON.

25243

No. 37.

(INTER-COLONIAL COUNCIL, TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY (Central South African Railways).)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE. [Interpretation of a Clause in an Agreement for the Construction of a Railway by the Government of Natal from Bethlehem to Kroonstad.]

Royal Courts of Justice, MY LORD,

July 12, 1906. We were honoured by Your Lordship's commands, signified to us by Mr. Graham in his letter of the 14th of June last, stating that he was directed by Your Lordship to transmit to us a copy of a despatch from the High Commissioner for South Africa requesting that our advice might be taken with reference to a difference of opinion which had arisen between the Government of Natal and the Central South African Railways as to the true interpretation of a clause in an agreement for the construction of a railway by the Government of Natal from Bethlehem to Kroonstad in the Orange River Colony. That the correspondence seemed sufficient to elucidate the matter, and that Your Lordship would be glad to receive an expression of our views on the points raised by Lord Selborne.

That Your Lordship would be glad if we would at the same time report upon the further points which might be involved.

That in their opinions dated the 31st of October, 1905, and the 11th of August, 1905,* our predecessors dealt with the question of the correct interpretation of Article IV. of the Modus Vivendi between the Transvaal and Mozambique. That assuming that, on the present occasion, the view of the Government of Natal was upheld, and that, in consequence, the Central South African Railways could be called on to reduce the rates on "the new line to such an extent that the through rate from Durban to the Transvaal viâ Van Reenen was lower than that viâ Volksrust, Your Lordship apprehended that the provisions of Article IV. of the Modus Vivendi would at once render necessary a corresponding reduction in the rates on the Lorenzo Marques-Johannesburg line.

That he was, however, to invite an expression of our opinion on this point, which might have an important bearing on the attitude of the Natal Government towards the question of reductions on the line viâ Van Reenen.

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

Report-

It

That, in our opinion, the interpretation by the Natal Government of the meaning of the Minute of their Prime Minister of the 24th February, 1005, is correct. seems clear that at the date of that Minute all the parties contemplated that the agreement reached at the Johannesburg Conference, which had just been held, would come into operation, and the Natal Government were to accept the rate to Johannesburg viâ Volksrust, fixed by that Conference. The Conference rate, how- ever, did not come into operation, owing to the action of the Portuguese Government. The Minute of the 24th February, 1905, from the Prime Minister of Natal, contem- plates that contingency, and provides that, in the event of its happening, the Volks- rust rate to Johannesburg must be made the subject of a fresh agreement by all the parties concerned, and if no such agreement can be come to, then Article XIII. is to have full effect. To this Lord Milner assented in his telegraphic despatch of the 3rd March, 1905. No such agreement has been come to, and, under these circum- stances, Article XIII. operates without restriction.

2. We think the Railway Committee are bound to accept the view of the Natal Government. The terms of the despatch of the 17th February, 1905, must be taken as qualified by the Minute from the Prime Minister of Natal of the 24th February. 1905.

25 Wt 1649 8/06 D&S 5 25417

• Nos. 19 and 14.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.8

Reference :-

.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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