CO885-(15-16) — Page 646

23546

!

SIR,

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

TPI

Reference :-

C.O.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

No. 166.

(MAURITIUS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Title of the Government of Mauritius to the copper-plate on which the penny and twopenny stamps of that Colony were engraved in 1847.]

ber.

Law Officers' Department,

Mr. Tilleard to Colonial Office, 12th Octo-

Copy of cutting from the "Standard." Mr. Tilleard to Colonial Office, 15th Octo- ber.

Royal Courts of Justice, 8th July, 1913.

We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. H. J. Read's letter of the 9th November last, stating that he was directed by you to lay before us the papers noted in the margin, from which it would be seen that a question had been raised as to the title of the Government of Mauritius to the copper-plate on which the penny and two-penny stamps of that Colony were engraved in 1847.

Colonial Office to Mr. Loder, 18th October. Mr. Loder to Colonial Office, 24th October. Colonial Office to Governor, 2nd November.

That, as the present possessor of the plate refused to admit the claim of the Colonial Government, the Governor had been requested to furnish evidence of the original title of the Government to the plate, and of any subsequent loss or disposition of its property therein.

That it would be observed that the Honorary Secretary of the Royal Philatelic Society said in his letter of the 12th of October: "There can be no doubt as to the fact that it was originally the property of the Government of Mauritius, the records (of which we have particulars in my Society's work on the stamps of that Colony) showing that the plate was engraved to the order of, and was paid for by, the Govern ment," and that he had accordingly been requested to furnish your Department with a digest of the evidence on which that statement was based.

That the case did not appear to have been one of sale in market-overt, and that even if it had been it was questionable whether the property of the Crown was subject to the law of market-overt.

That consequently that defence would not be available to the present possessor of the plate, but that it was submitted that it was for the Crown to prove a defect in his title and not for him to prove that such a defect did not exist.

That assuming, therefore, that it would be possible to give satisfactory proof that the Government of Mauritius ordered and paid for the plate in 1847, you inclined to the opinion that, in view of the prima facie presumption of law that the person who has de facto possession of goods has the property in them and is protected against all who cannot prove a superior title, if proceedings were taken for the recovery of the plate the onus would lie on the Crown to prove, not merely its original title, but also that that title had not been in any way displaced, and not on the present possessor to show that the person through whom he derives his title had a superior title to the Crown.

That the mere absence of information as to what happened to the plate many years ago when it disappeared from Government control would not appear to con- stitute proof of its loss, and that it was quite possible that the plate was stolen or embezzled, or that, being at that time of practically no value, it was handed over by the Government to an official for destruction, or left in the custody of an official, in either case being retained by him and its existence in course of time forgotten.

That it seemed improbable that any evidence of the loss, theft, or disposition of the plate asked for in the despatch to Mauritius would now be forthcoming, and that criminal proceedings under the Larceny Act, 1896, would in any case appear to be out of the question.

That, in the event of an action being instituted in this country for the wrongful detention of the plate, it was conceived that, as the act complained of had been done in this country, the alleged tort would be dealt with according to the principles of English law, but that it was possible that the question whether any interruption of the Crown's original title occurred in Mauritius, might involve the application of

(32063~2.) Wt. 183-729. 25, 10/18, D & S.