20
passage, was shot; other shots were fired. (Two witnesses identified Castioni as the person who shot Rossi.) A provisional Government was set up by the insurgents. Bruni, leader of the revolt, in cross-examination before the Magistrate, said, "The death of Rossi was a misfortune, and not necessary for the rising." Castioni was committed for extradition, and the Magistrate held that the crime was not of a political character.
(Upon a motion to the QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION for a rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus Counsel appeared to show cause, and it was, therefore, argued and treated as a motion for a rule absolute.)
Held That the homicide for which prisoner's extradition was demanded was incidental to, and formed part of, political disturbances, and, therefore, was an offence of a political character within the meaning of section 3 of the Extradition Act, 1870; and prisoner was discharged.
The Court adopted the definition of "an offence of a political character" suggested by Stephen, J., in his History of the Criminal Law of England, vol. 2, p. 71.
Held also: That the Court was not bound by the decision of the Magistrate on the facts before him, but had power to consider the whole matter, and to receive fresh evidence. (See page 6.)
(As to PROCEDURE ON APPEAL TO COURT OF KING'S BENCH, see R v. de Portugal, L.R. 16 Q.B.D. 487; 55 L.J. (Q.B.) 567; 34 W.R. 42.)
(As to POWER OF COURT OF KING'S BENCH on application for a writ of habeas corpus, see Ex parte Huguet, 12 Cox C.C. 551; 29 L.T. (N.S.) 41; In re Meunier, L.R. Q.B.D. 1894 (2) 415; 63 L.J.M.C. 198; 18 Cox C.C. 15; In re Maurer, 52 L.J.M.C., 105; L.R. 10 Q.B.D. 513; In re Querin, 58 L.J.M.C. 42; 16 Cox C.C. 596; 53 J.P. 467; 60 L.T. (N.S.) 538; 37 W.R. 289; In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C, 23: 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.)
(As to POLITICAL OFFENCE, see In re Meunier (as above); In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C. 23.)
21
uncertainty; that the English warrants are bad for uncertainty, and for differing from the French warrant, and from the Secretary of State's order; and that the warrant of committal is bad—the prisoner has not committed crimes as bailee or agent as construed according to English law; he will be tried in France for embezzlement, and he is not committed therefor—the warrant being bad in part is bad in toto.
Held: The warrants are good. In 4 out of the 19 cases charged the facts amount to fraud by a bailee or agent within section 76 of the Larceny Act. "Embezzlement" is only the word used to translate the French word, and might equally well be rendered "fraudulent misappropriation."
Per CAVE, J. There is a warrant which describes this as a crime of fraud by an agent, and the evidence satisfied the Magistrate that on some of these charges it was sufficient; and as to some of them the Court considers he was right. I do not see that there is any reason why the warrant, which is in perfectly general terms, is not to be held by us to be good in respect of the four cases as to which there is sufficient prima facie evidence to go upon.
(As to DESCRIPTION OF OFFENCE, See Ex parte Terraz, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 63; 48 L.J. (Ex.) 214; 14 Cox C.C. 153; 39 L.T (N.S.) 502; 27 W.R. 170; R. v. Jacobi and Hiller, 46 LT. (N.S.) 595 note; Ex parte Piot, 15 Cox C.C. 208; 17 J.P. 247: 48 L.T. (N.S.) 120.)
(As to FRAUD BY AN AGENT, &c., see Larceny Act, 1901, replacing ss. 75 and 76 of the Larceny Act of 1861.)
IN RE PINTER Switzerland.
21st December, 1891.
QUEEN'S BENCH:
SMITH and WRIGHT, JJ.
IN RE BELLENCONTRE.
France.
23rd, 24th, 26th February, 1891.
QUEEN'S BENCH: CAVE and WILLS, JJ.
L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (2) 122; 60 L.J.M.C. 83; 17 Cox C.C. 253; 55 J.P. 694.
Bellencontre was committed by Sir J. Bridge for "fraud by a bailee, and fraud by an agent." The French warrant charged "abus de confiance," or "embezzlement or misappropriation of sums of money delivered to him in his capacity of notary," in 19 separate cases.
A rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus having been granted, it was Argued That the embezzlement mentioned in the French warrant is not embezzlement according to English law; and the misappropriation charged therein is not known to English law; and that the warrant is void for uncertainty...
17 Cox C.C. 497.
The evidence showed that Pinter, passing under an assumed name, was in 1890 in possession of a number of bonds which had been stolen from Messrs. Baring in 1883, and that, during a period of a few months in 1890, he had sold several of these bonds to innocent purchasers.
Upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus, it was
Held: That there was evidence of guilty knowledge on which he could be committed for trial; and, assuming that prisoner knew that the bonds were stolen, his conduct amounted to a false representation of their genuineness, which was not cured by the fact that, the bonds passing freely from hand to hand, an innocent purchaser would be able to get his money back again.
517