24
Contended: That, the Magistrate having come to the conclusion that no forgery, according to English law, had been committed in such falsification and using, the committal was bad, as the Magistrate could not commit Arton for faux, the French equivalent or translation of "forgery"; and further that in the committal "falsification, &c.," without stating that such falsification was in the character of trustee, &c., of a public company, was insufficient to bring the charge under Article III (18) of the treaty; and falsification of accounts simply was not in the treaty, and not in the offences mentioned in the first schedule to the Extradition Act of 1870.
Held: That the offence of falsification of accounts charged was a crime within the French version of Article III (2) of the treaty, and within the English version of Article III (18), and according to English law, section 83 of the Larceny Act, 1861, and section 1 of the Falsification of Accounts Act, 1875; and a crime according to French law, being faux or forgery within Article 147 of the Code Pénal; and that it was an extradition crime within the first schedule to the Extradition Act, 1870.
(As to DESCRIPTION OF OFFENCES, 800
Ex parte Terras, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 63; 48 LJ. (Ex.) 214; 14 Cox C.C. 153,
39 L.T. (N.S) 502; 27 W.R. 170;
R. v. Jacobi and Hiller, 46 L.T. (N.S) 595 note;
Ex parte Piot, 15 Cox C.C. 208; 47 J.P. 247; 48 L.T. (N.S.) 120;
In re Bellencontre, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (2) 122; 60 L.J.M.C. 83; 17 Cox C.C. 253;
55 J.P. 694;
R. v. Die, "Times," 15th January, 1902.)
EX PARTE EMILE GEORGE. France.
11th August, 1897.
QUEEN'S BENCH:
25
LAWRANCE and COLLINS, JJ.
18 Cox C.C. 631.
George was committed for extradition upon a charge of larceny under section 3 of the Larceny Act, 1861, "abus de confiance.” The evidence showed that Madame de la Croisette intrusted George with a bond with authority to raise a loan for her upon it; George raised the loan and fraudulently appropriated the money so raised. A rule nisi was obtained,
upon the argument thereon it was
and
Held: (following the decision in Reg. v. De Banks; 15 Cox C.C. 450; 53 L.J. 132; 32 W.R. 723; 48 J.P. 470: 50 L.T. (N.S.) 427; L.R. 13 Q.B.D. 29) That the evidence amounted to larceny by a bailee under section 3 of the Larceny Act, 1861.
IN RE GALWEY,
Belgium.
18th January, 1896.
QUEEN'S BENCH:
Lord RUSSELL, C.J., WRIGHT and KENNEDY, JJ.
L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 230; 65 L.J.M.C. 38; 18 Cox C.C. 213; 60 J.P. 87.
Upon an application to make absolute a rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus it was
Contended: That Galwey, being a British subject, was not liable to extradition under the Act and the treaty and subsequent declaration,
It was admitted that Galwey was a British subject.
Held: That the provisions of the declaration of 1887, providing that the High Contracting Parties shall not be bound to surrender their own subjects, imply that they may do so, and that the surrender of a British subject to Belgium now rests in the discretion of the Secretary of State.
(Field, J.'s words in R. v. Wilson, quoted by Lord Russell, C.J.)
(See R. v. Wilson; L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 42; 48 L.J.M.C. 37; 13 Cox C.C. 630; 37 LT.
(N.S.) 544.)
R. v. SPILSBURY.
Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.
Morocco Order in Council, 1889.
4th, 5th, 8th August, 1898.
QUEEN'S BENCH: Lord RUSSELL, C.J., WRIGHT and KENNEDY, JJ.
L.R. Q.B.D. 1898 (2) 615; 67 L.J. (Com. Law) 988; "Times
9th August, 1898; 19 Cox C.C. 160; 79 L.T. (N.S.) 211.
Spilsbury having been committed under section 5 of the Fugitive Offenders Act to await return to Tangier, for unlawfully and riotously assembling with others to the number of three or four, and riotously making an assault upon soldiers of the Sultan of Morocco, &c., application was made for a writ of habeas corpus, and in the alternative for bail, and for variance of the order for return by directing return to Gibraltar instead of Tangier.
Held: That the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court has jurisdiction to admit to bail a person committed under the Fugitive Offenders Act. But the Court refused to exercise that jurisdiction. The order was varied by directing return to Gibraltar instead of to Tangier. (Section 35 F.O. Act.)
10529
D
519