Many Arts 1570, do not apply to the China- that the Treaty of Tientsin does not prescribe the manner in which the question of the proof & guilt required by art. XXX ought to be dealt with. Mr. Gutch cannot admit that
There is warrant either for the Colonial Ordinance to exact conclusive evidence, especially the opinion of the magistrate, when further evidence is forthcoming after the magistrate has committed or discharged the person sought, as regards the nature of the proof & guilt intended by the treaty without implying that it might not be absolute proof.
I conceded that it does not mean absolute proof.
Low v. Tap 58, 57, where the judgment speaks, and that it may be used to support a prima facie extradition. I said that in the case in question the first authorities are not satisfied that there was presumptive proof of the guilt of the accused person.
If it is true that the Chinese authorities had no opportunity of rebutting the further evidence brought before the Examining Magistrate, I have a reasonable ground of complaint.
Now that point cannot be decided without seeing the evidence. They decline to furnish it, and it might be futile to press the matter further in reaching the root of the question. We decline to discharge the accused persons.
We might add that Section 3 of the Magistrate Ordinance, to which Marquis Trany refers Emperor, states that the Magistrate effectuating the warrant shall have reasonable cause for believing the person to have committed the offence to commit him to prison until the Judge shall receive some other order from the Governor relating to the discharge & the further detention.
The Commissioner's opinion is that the Governor before deciding to discharge a prisoner committed by the magistrate, would naturally consult his Council, and that (as in Governor's Minute) is agreed.
Kept Jan 18.
D. Jan 18.
Marquis Trany should be told that the Extradition
ศ
1873
Many
Arts 1570, do not apply to the China-
that the Treaty of Tientsin dous net prescribe the manner in wheel the question of the peod * & juilt required by art. XXX out that H. Mr. Gutt connect admit that
o the heat
رہا
is wh
There on farmed
X
either
the Cotmail Adinance to enext
conclusive expecially
the opinion of the magistrale
4-1
when further lindince is for theeming after the magistrate has committed
where extradition in
Dy
Discharged the person
sought-
as gard
the nature of the proof & quilt intender w the heaty without I "depporn that it magh
I conceded that it doves hit mean
nels abrilute proof
x du
AL
Low thap 58.57 where the judgeme
wuld be necessary speaks
and that it may June Jenne
to support a price Encrition
I said that in the case in question the first
aus m. (concil
are not sateised that there
"was presumption proof of the filt of the 11
accused pers.
fot
pportunit
[ If it is true that the Chemise authenties had no of rebatting the further eindran haught before the Eni Anant
I have a reasonthe ground of complaint.
витрар
ow that point without seeing They)
They decen
and it magh but to fap
rother in resching the site we the reavest o
in the frowned, décline
The accused pences.
Ew 5.1
X
Ingen bat at & we might add that Section 3 of the Mimani to
if there affian Which Manguis Tory refers Emporre. The Imagistrate effeccatifying
to him to be Installa Cause for believing the person & han committier the Offene to commit him to prison & instil the Jader shall reccior some other
Gister
from the Governo relation to the
discharge
the
& the farther
detentions,
374
- Kansmission pouch person" the Chinace Authirties; that Governor before dinding & discharge prisoner stund Committed by the magistrate,
Cammy
hate, Would Naturally
Consult his Council, and that de (as in Grevine Mint )
131011
I agree.
Keut Jan
D. Jan. 18.
JZ-
གེ - ::་ བ
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.