260
Od 1
B29 9he moqu đon si ji nebivotų,eoneliu
荠
To ai syprosie end esmo sine ui ea
a noqu bellique su yau
.eome1to slo stibat) -
100 BON.
: Bula
viij nogu #w nieod and I'
one b. o. Ju J Jane Bi-G
DANO YA NRcoloni, uonosive efualiova
"
nak nini Ima od Immit ONTDOO
QUIC ville” Judi*
Tolksleræq dand as zat
42
[ía ou:8
gery ulo.iv end us
B. B Bİ,0%¢AIJ BLTÍ
DO KTO SMESİ LATU 35 zni oa kne
de ulur da acu alto and
af: Wimonio et: Jun 26-
Doma kula to 90. 1 Deuropi dod duondie
Ca boil. I*
vic moup nina moqu
ni qizunqioen ingoi miv dillud ni 999 a bluate
Tu 9V.
{{QUI) (9JL” ən ni ni
no102 Y
x 11' :00. 9mg d
1 To not-
ind and ni JI*
-482.501 d
BRUB MOVA, NO
+
we mugu angles Eason tugu ban re for "i bejasıIS guidesoviq me "İ ONAJEL 10 1Daaročni
sing not bediere cu
1
3ow Jon bijo.:
JaLP
Z800
+
doona begva.1: ano sh¿ ajunt laor
nd Boyu AVA JUN aenoist now
hossatmoq nuqu Jee 18 of
vand 90,13 Bar Ji maliw (5*
P900ny ano yud bs-
Murtez evijuoore une to
1 t Bobably a bid to guefortiweni bagelle
ukiumere v TeVOL UI BHW #1907
Tul yo
in order to supply more convincing testimony, the court held to the contrary. In re Kelly, (1886) 26 Fed. Rep. 852. See
Ex p. Kilburn, (1835) 9 Pet. (U. S.) 704.
"Touching the effect of the Habeas Corpus Act, 31 Car. II,
0.2. Sec. 6, on this case, reliance was placed upon a dictum in Atty.-Gen. v. Kwok-a-Sing, L.R. 5 P. C. 179, at page 202, where it is said: 'They do not say x I x that the section
may not also apply to cases where a prisoner is discharged
unconditionally upon the ground that the warrant on which he
is detained shows no valid cause for his detention. They
think, however, it can only apply when the second arrest is
substantially for the same cause as the first, so that the
return to the second writ of habeas corpus raises for the
opinion of the court the same question with reference to tue validity of the grounds of detention as the first'. The object of the section is succinctly given in Short & Mellors'
Crown Practice 337, thus: Provision is made against a person
set at large upon habeas corpus being vexatiously committed again for the same offence.
*The language of Mellish, L.J., in L.R. 5 P.C. indicates, I
think, that he was regarding the second arrest as involving substantially the same matters of investigation and of evidence as the first arrest; and that is manifestly not the case in the present inquiry, for here the second proceeding is to supplement and make good what was lacking in the first; so far from being vexatious it is the interest of justice and international comity that the charge should be further prosecuted.
"But I think the better view is that taken in a Victoria
court, viz., that this statute does not apply to extradition proceedings. The preamble of the English Act shows that it is framed for the benefit of those of the King's subjects who are
in custody, and it was held by Holroyd, J., in In re Frederic Gebhard No. 3, (1901) 27 Victoria L.R. 655, that the 'offence' mentioned in section 6 must be limited to offences
i