Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Joint Court of the New Hebrides

  Download original PDF

Public Prosecutor v Watt [1912] VUNHJC 17; Criminal 54 (6 June 1912)

Nº 54

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PLAINTIFF

v

LEON WATT, Recruiter of Vila,

and

LEON CHAUVIERE, Planter of Second Chanel
DEFENDANT

HEARING The 6th June 1912.

CHARGED WITH having committed a breach of Article XXXIII of the Convention of 1906.

JUDGMENT

The year one thousand nine hundred and twelve, and the sixth day of June, the Joint Court composed of the Count of Buena Esperanza, President; G. G. Alexander, British Judge and J. Colonna, French Judge;

In the presence of the Count of Andino, Public Prosecutor; C. W. M. Beugel, Registrar, holding the pen,

Sitting in police cases, pronounced the following judgment:-

THE COURT

After having heard the reading of the documents in the: file of the case, and after having heard the explanations of the accused Chauviere and Watt in defence both personally and through the intermediary of their advocate M. Mage, and having heard the summing up of the Public Prosecutor;

WHEREAS, on the 9th May 1912, the Public Prosecutor of the Joint Court summoned Watt and Chauviere to appear before this jurisdiction to be heard and condemned in accordance with the penalties provided in Article LVI of the Convention of the 20th October 1906, the first-named for having recruited, and the second-named for having encased, in July last year, the native Melanie without the consent of her husband;

AND WHEREAS Article XXXIII (1) has been drawn up with a view of safeguarding the protctorship of the husband and the authority of the Chief of the tribe, according as the case may be, in regard to native women, and the foregoing in the interest of the order which should reins in tribes or villages and in the interest of local customs which the Convention is anxious to respect and to have respected.

WHEREAS, in this case, it is a question of a married woman, that is to say, of a native who cannot, according to the terms of the Article above-mentioned, even for a moment alienate her liberty without her husband's authorisation; and that if this authorisation was not obtained at the very time of recruiting, for the circumstances related at the trial have not permitted it to be given.