Within this belong one other important point that was raised by Mr. J. J. Franas (who were at that time the Attorney for Krok a ding) was that the Ordinance was a dead letter.
By Ordinance 2 of 1850, all treaties made previously to the passing of the Ordinance had been abrogated or put an end to by the war between England and China in 185g, and Mr. Francis argued that the Ordinance could not be considered to be revived or to apply to the cases where rendition was claimed under the Treaty of S[eg]tin negotiated after the war.
The question of what was "a prima facie case" was not raised. O.M. 10 Cans Le 220, prima facie "probable cause" was argued, and there was no binding judicial decision as to what was sufficient to justify the Magistrate in saying that a prima facie case had been made out.
The words "probable cause for believing that the said person has committed such crime or offence" were the legal equivalent of the words "guilt" contained in Ordinance 2 of 1871, the latter Ordinance not affecting the decision as it was passed after Mr. Frasers'...
Page 12
Page 13
was -> were (line 2)
Franvas -> Francis (line 3)
Extorney -> Attorney (line 3)
Avas -> was (line 5)
Sicutin -> Peking or another city name (line 16), but as it is not clear, it is kept as is.
ao -> a (line 20)
Enagistrate -> Magistrate (line 25)
Pufficient -> Sufficient (line 25)
quilt -> guilt (line 29)
bonnent -> comment (line 30), but as the sentence is not clear, it is kept as is.
Fravers -> Frasers (line 31)