22
R. v. LUSHINGTON, EX PARTE OTTO.
France.
13th November, 1893.
QUEEN'S BENCH: WRIGHT, J.
L.R. Q.B.D. 1894 (1) 420; 58 J.P. 282.
One Ebstein was committed for surrender to France in connection with a larceny of jewellery and other articles. Upon the hearing of the case, certain articles were produced under a subpœna duces tecum by a witness who had purchased them from the accused in England, and were identified as part of the property stolen. The Magistrate, on committing Ebstein, orally directed a constable to take charge of the property so produced and identified, in order that it might be produced at the trial in France.
The purchaser applied under 11 and 12 Vic. c. 44 s. 5, for an order directing the Magistrate to order the property to be delivered up to him.
Held: The Magistrate was functus officio as soon as he had committed the accused; and the Court had no power to make an order on him to do something outside the ordinary course of his judicial functions.
When the jewellery passed out of his hands by virtue of the process of the Court (subpoena duces tecum) the purchaser's possessory title became divested by order of the Court. I think it is undoubted law that when articles have once been produced in Court by witnesses it is right and necessary for the Court, or the constable to preserve and retain them so that they may be always available for the purposes of justice until the trial is concluded.
23
Anarchists' offences impose the government of their own choice on the other. are not political, being in the main attacks on private citizens generally, rather than on governments or on members of any particular government as such.
(As to POLITICAL OFFENCE, see
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;
In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C. 23.)
IN RE ARTON.
France.
21st December, 1895.
QUEEN'S BENCH: Lord RUSSELL, C.J., WILLS and WRIGHT, JJ.
L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C. 23.
Upon a motion for a rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus, four grounds were given, of which 3 and 4 were: 3. That the demand for extradition was not made in good faith and in the interests of justice; 4. That the offences imputed were all of them political in their character, and the surrender was demanded from exclusively political motives. As to 4. Counsel admitted that the offences in themselves were not of a political character, but it was contended that, if properly extradited, the prisoner, when he got into the hands of the French Government, would be compelled to disclose matters which he knew, and in which the State was interested, or undergo indefinite imprisonment.
Held: That the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Extradition Act, 1870, apply only to an offence of a political character which has been already committed; and it is not open to the Court to consider ground 3, such consideration resting with the Government: and cannot enter into the judicial consideration of the question.
Writ granted on ground 1 as to falsification of accounts.
(As to POLITICAL OFFENCES, see
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;
In re Meunier, L.R. Q.B.D. 1894 (2) 415; 63 L.J.M.C. 198; 18 Cox C.C. 15.)
IN RE MEUNIER.
France.
11th June, 1894.
QUEEN'S BENCH: CAVE and COLLINS, JJ.
L.R. Q.B.D. 1894 (2) 415; 63 L.J.M.C. 198; 18 Cox C.C. 15.
Meunier was committed for extradition for murder and attempted murder, in one case by an explosion at Lobau Barracks, and in another by an explosion at the Café Véry.
Application was made for a writ of habeas corpus in vacation by summons (Crown Office Rules, 1886, Rule 238) at chambers, and referred to the Court.
Held: That if the charges had depended upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice (which was not the case) such absence of corroboration was not conclusive in favour of prisoner's right of acquittal; but the Magistrate had a discretion as to whether the evidence was sufficient to justify committal.
Separate committals were not necessary.
The outrage at the Barracks was not an offence of a political character, to constitute which there must be two or more parties in the State each seeking to...
IN RE ARTON. France.
18th, 20th January, and 8th February, 1896.
QUEEN'S BENCH: Lord RUSSELL, C.J., WRIGHT and KENNEDY, JJ. L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132.
Arton having been committed for various crimes, including faux (falsification of accounts and using falsified accounts), upon an application to make absolute an order nisi for a writ of habeas corpus, it was...
518