POOLEY v. WHETHAM,
July, 1880.
12
CHANCERY DIVISION AND COURT OF APPEAL
L.R. 15 Ch. Div. (1880) 435; 30 L.J. Ch. 236.
On 20th September, 1879, an attachment was issued by the High Court against Pooley for disobedience of an order of the Court in a civil action. On 27th September a petition in bankruptcy was filed, and Pooley was adjudicated bankrupt on 22nd October, and he soon afterwards left England. On 13th May, 1880, the trustee obtained permission to prosecute Pooley for offences against bankruptcy law. Pooley was arrested in Paris on 1st June on a warrant issued on 22nd May. On 7th June an order was obtained to lodge the writ of attachment with the Governor of Newgate, and that Pooley when released from the criminal charge should be handed over to the Governor of Holloway Prison until he had purged his contempt. On 28th June, Pooley was discharged by the Guildhall Magistrate in respect of the charges in the warrant, and he was then taken to Holloway.
CHANCERY DIVISION.
He applied (9th July) to Vice-Chancellor BACON to discharge him. The motion was refused with costs.
COURT OF APPEAL.
From this order he appealed; and the Court, after hearing evidence, Held: Disobedience of an order of the High Court of Justice in a civil action, though a contempt of Court, is not an "offence" within the meaning of section 19 of the Extradition Act; and Pooley was therefore not entitled to his discharge until his contempt had been purged. If a warrant under the Extradition Act is obtained, not for the bona fide purpose of punishing a person for a crime, but with the indirect object of making him amenable to an attachment in a civil action, it will be an abuse of the process of the Court, and the attachment will be set aside.
R. v. JACOBI AND HILLER.
Germany.
3rd March, 1881.
QUEEN'S BENCH: Pollock, B., and STEPHEN, J.
46 L.T. (N.S.) 595, footnote.
On 23rd September, 1880, prisoners sent from Amsterdam a letter to Heininger & Co., Mayence, ordering furniture to be sent to Amsterdam. Heininger's agent called on them, and prisoners made certain alleged false statements. Furniture was supplied, sent by ordinary carrying agents to Amsterdam; it was not paid for, but was removed to England, and prisoners absconded to England. Warrants were issued at Mayence in December for the arrest of the prisoners, setting forth that they were "suspected of fraud" by having, with intent to procure illegal pecuniary profit, and by a promise of payment given in writing falsely and in bad faith, induced Heininger to forward furniture, thus causing pecuniary prejudice to the said firm.
13
They were committed for extradition for "obtaining goods by false pretences"; and on application for rules nisi for writs of habeas corpus, it was
Contended: That if any offence had been committed it was in Holland and not in Germany; and that the German warrant of arrest was bad for insufficiency, as it did not state upon its face that the crime charged was the extradition offence of obtaining goods by false pretences, but set out a mere fraud which could be substantiated without proving a single false pretence for which they could be indicted in England; such mere fraud was not an extradition offence in the treaty.
Held: That the offence was committed in Germany, the property being actually parted with at Mayence: and that (referring to ex parte Terraz) the warrant was sufficient.
Per POLLOCK, B.-It seems to me that upon all the sound principles the course of dealing of the prisoners was an obtaining of the goods in Mayence under false pretences: and the Magistrate decided upon evidence contained in those letters, which clearly show that there was false pretence, and that under those circumstances the offence was committed.
(See ex parte Terras, L.R. 1 Ex. D. 63; 48 L.J. Ex. 214; 14 Cox C.C. 153; 39 L.T. (N.S.) 502; 27 W.R. 170; and R. v. Nillins, 53 L.J.M.C. 157; and In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C, 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132.)
R. v. LAVAUDIER AND OTHERS.
Belgium.
24th August, 1881.
QUEEN'S BENCH: CAVE and KAY, JJ.
15 Cox C.C. 329.
(Head note in Cox's Reports: "To satisfy a Magistrate in committing a prisoner charged with an extradition crime, under section 10 there must be some evidence that the prisoner committed such crime within the jurisdiction of the country seeking extradition.")
On the night of the 3rd-4th June, 1881, a burglary was committed in Brussels. These prisoners had been seen before the 3rd June in London with the person who subsequently brought the stolen goods from Belgium, who had been seen in Brussels at the time of the commission of the burglary. These prisoners pledged the stolen goods in London. They were committed for extradition for receiving and being accessories after the fact to the burglary.
Held: That there was no evidence at all to show that the accused were guilty of receiving these stolen goods in Belgium, though there was strong evidence of receiving stolen goods in England, and prisoners were discharged.
(See R. v. Nillins, 53 L.J.M.C. 157; and R. v. Jacobi and Hiller, 46 L.T. (N.S.) 595, footnote.)
513