18
19
IN RE ALICE WOODALL. U.S.A.
5th May, 1888.
COURT OF APPEAL: Lord ESHER, M.R., LINDLEY, L.J., and Bowen, L.J.
L.R. 20 Q.B.D. 832; 57 LJ.M.C. 71.
The accused having been committed for surrender, application was made to a Divisional Court for an order nisi for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the Magistrate had declined to adjourn the case in order that evidence in favour of the accused might be obtained from New York, and that upon the evidence before the Magistrate he ought not to have committed. The Divisional Court refused the order on these grounds. Motion was now made, by way of appeal, for an order nisi.
Held: That the decision of the Queen's Bench Division was given in a "criminal cause or matter" within section 47 of the Judicature Act, 1873, and therefore no appeal would lie to the Court of Appeal.
IN RE ALICE WOODALL.
U.S.A.
9th May, 1888.
QUEEN'S BENCH: Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., FIELD and WILLS, JJ.
57 L.J.M.C. 72; 16 Cox C.C. 478.
Prisoner had been committed for extradition on two charges of forgery. A rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus was obtained on the ground that there was no sufficient provision made by the Government of the United States that she should not be tried for an offence other than that for which she was extradited, as required by the Extradition Act, section 3 (2).
Held (discharging the rule)
That the United States Government had made provision for this sub-section, and that a fugitive criminal would be tried there solely for the offence in respect of which he had been surrendered. This point had been clearly raised and decided in the United States v. Rauscher, which, as a decision of the Supreme Court of America, was binding on all Courts within the Union.
(It is mentioned in the report (Cox) of this case that in consequence of Lawrence having been tried in the United States for offences other than those for which he was surrendered, the British Government refused to surrender Winslow without a pledge that the prisoner should not be tried except for the offence for which he was extradited; the United States refused to give this pledge, and Winslow was never surrendered.)
(For case of United States v. Lawrence see 13 Cox C.C. 361.) (And see now Article III. of United States Supplementary Convention of 1889.)
IN RE GUERIN.
France.
12th, 13th November, 1888.
QUEEN'S BENCH : WILLS and GRANTHAM, JJ.
58 L.J.M.C. 42; 16 Cox C.C. 596; 53 J.P. 467; 60 L.T. (N.S.) 558 ; 37 W.R. 289.
The prisoner had been arrested on a charge of larceny in France, and brought up before Sir J. Ingham, before whom evidence was given on six occasions ; then Mr. Vaughan took up the case, and on five days heard evidence, and then committed the prisoner for extradition.
A rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus was granted on the grounds that no evidence of the prisoner's crime had been given before Mr. Vaughan, and that the magistrate's decision as to nationality was wrong.
Held That the judicial discretion which a Magistrate has to exercise on cases brought before him must be based on the evidence taken before him, and it is not competent for him to act upon evidence taken before another Magistrate. There was however sufficient evidence before Mr. Vaughan without that which was taken before Sir J. Ingham; and the order nisi was discharged.
As to the question of nationality, it was
Held That the Queen's Bench Division has a right to review the finding of the Magistrate upon a matter of fact which is cardinal to the existence of his jurisdiction and collateral to the subject of enquiry.
By direction of the Court--the affidavits as to nationality being conflicting --an issue was tried on 20th and 21st December before HUDDLeston, B., and a common jury as to whether prisoner was a "native born or naturalised subject" of this country; this was found against the prisoner.
(See also ex parte Hugel, 12 Cox C.C. 551; 29 L.T. (N.S.) 41; and In re Castioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T. (N.S.) 344; 17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 328.
RE CASTIONI, Switzerland.
10th, 11th November, 1890.
QUEEN'S BENCH:
DENMAN, HAWKINS and STEPHEN, JJ.
L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T.(N.S.) 344; 17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 328.
Castioni took part in an insurrection which broke out in the Canton of Ticino, and he and others, having seized arms from the arsenal, and seized five persons connected with the Government, bound them, and marched to the Government House, where they were refused admittance by Councillors Rossi and Gianella with about 80 gendarmes. The gates were broken, and the people rushed in; a second locked door was broken open, and Rossi, who was in the
10529
0 2
516