--
iv
!
પ
دان
vo) Inigoloj
To tad no mucivo Biedn
SIN
MI. DOLUB#
• Silg100 #104 M A
fu C
4 02
18.
257
IL. 937ng Y, ad dignu
tiis ni Ji KICŽVE
milpos TOTUR
7990019 Tel do
**Job kati
ILYAN ORAL TRUTO SUT
it ni dwG vedon ad LILY ST
C NOLJ RSUD ON
to quis son moiaioeb ent
na modeloeb nomland wipe.do? nud
()
soletiva wa JWT (9)
1:
Mi Vil
Dr (6)
事
1 TO JUCA
-mission of the alleged offence or identifying the document with the forgery of which the prisoner was charged. Osler, J., said: 'The evidence I I x does not come up to what is re- -quired, and would not have justified the magistrate in com- -mitting the prisoner had the offence been committed in this country'. Re Harsha, (1906) 7 0. W. R. 97, at page 103. "In Reg. v. Ganz, (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 93, at page 105, Kanisty,
J., says: 'In order to give the magistrate jurisdiction there must be a crime charged which is within the treaty, and the magistrate must have before him evidence such as would justify according to the law of England' (Canada) 'the committal for
trial of the prisoner if the crime had been committed in
England, and there must be a foreign warrant authorizing the
arrest,' etc.
*In this case the crime charged in the first warrant was that
the forgery, an no doubt the same crime is charged in the sec-
-ond warrant. But now it is proved that further additional and
new evidence has been discovered or will be forthcoming, where-
-by the deficiencies pointed out may and no doubt will be reme-
-died. Having regard to the character and the nature of extre- -dition proceedings, it appears perfectly competent to take
this course,
and no rights of the prisoner and no safeguards of
the law are thereby invaded.
"The law is very distinct that where there is no evidence or no sufficient evidence before the magistrate in these extradition matters, he is held to be without jurisdiction, and a commit- -tal for surrender is in such conditions an unwarrantable act in excess of his jurisdiction. Reg. v. Maurer, (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 513, at pages 515, 516.
"The magistrate is charged with the duty of considering whether
the evidence before him is sufficient according to law to
justify the committal of the accused for trial: he is not to determine and dispose of the case by giving judgment upon it,
but he states his opinion (if it be so) that there is a prim. facie case and on that ground issues his warrant of cormittal