JEWELS AND ROUBLES

Taranaki Daily News, 10 July 1930, Page 13

JEWELS AND ROUBLES

LEFT AT AN EMBASSY.

CLAIM FOR £58,000 FAILS.

Judgment was given in the Court of Appeal in London on May 28 in a relating to the loea of jewellery and notes in Russia iu 1918.

The appeal was by Mr. Charley Her* bert Bucknall, diamond merchant, from a decision of Mr. Justice Horridge oil a Petition of Right, under which M claimed, from the Crown about £58,000. the estimated value of jewels ( ans roubles deposited by him with tlie Brl* tifih Consul at Petrograd in 1918. Thers. was also a cross-appeal by the Crovv® in respect of an issue dealt with it* the same judgment. It was stated at the hearing of tlis petition that in consequence of the security of life and property in.Petro* grad in .1918, Mr. Bucknall deposited jewels and roubles with Mr. the Consul, at the British Embassy-la that city, for safe keeping. In July OS that year Mr. Woodhouse had difficult# in communicating by telegraph with tM Foreign Office in London when requltf* ing money necessary for the discharge of his duties, and. he requested Mr f Bucknall to place the jewels and monet at his disposal for use in His Ma jesty $ service. ■ • ■ : Mr. Bucknall agreed, and the property, which was kept in a locked leather bag; marked with his name, was put in thfc safe at. the Embassy. On August 19, 1918, Mr. Woodhouse was arrested, ana on the day following the Embassy wag forcibly entered by persons who said they represented the Soviet Govern.', ment. The Vice-Consul and everybody else on the premises were- arrested, but the Vice-Consul was assured that ths contents of the safe would not be touch-, cd. Later, however. Mr. Bucknail’s baf was opened and the contents taken away. Under the Petition of Right, Mr. Buck* nail brought an action against the Crown claiming the value of his property. The Crown entered a demurrer, maintaining that the claim was- barred by the Indemnity Act, 1920. . They also contended that there was no cause of action as the loss of the property W<M not due to negligence on the part of their servants. At trial Mr. Justice Horridge decided, against the Crown on the point that there was no cause of action, but 11S their favour on the issue of demurrer, on the ground that the fiat of the At-torney-General to bring the action had not been obtained, as required by Indemnity Act. ’ ; The cross-appeal by the Crown was on the particular decision that the facts alleged would, at common law, call for an' answer by the Crown. Both appeal* were dismissed. The Court held that the claim was barred by the Indemnity Act. Lord Justice Serutton agreed with Mr, Justice Horridge that, though a fiat to sue was granted by the King on the advice of the Home Secretary, that did not amount to obtaining the consent of the Attorney-General, as required by the Indemnity Act. That in itself, he added, would be enough to dispose of the case, but the Attorney-General wished to prosecute his apnea 1 against the decision that, at common law, there was a case for the Crown to answer. It might be conceded, the Judge said, that Mr. Bucknall would probably not have been any better off if he had not deposited the property at the Embassy, for jewellery in the hands of an English subject in Petrograd in 1918 was not particularly safe. It was said in the petition that the. Embassy hud been warned that people who were breaking into houses might make .forcible entry.. The Judge said he was of opinion that in the circumstances the loss would, at common law, have required explanation. The petition was barred by the Indemnity! \ Act I- .Both 'appeals failed. Lords Justiet>e --Gi-eer and SJesser com curred- -k ..