at Canton. That he was instructed by Chan King-ming to proceed to Hongkong and cash the cheques and hand the proceeds to him. That he came to Hongkong accord- ingly and went to the two Banks where he ultimately negotiated the cheques. As to the transactions in Hongkong relating to the cheques and the position of Chan Ewing- ming in regard to them I shall deal with later. It appears, however, that the fugitive onshed the cheque for $30.000 on the Inter- national Bank, placing the sum on fixed deposit in his own name, and of the $100,000, the Hongkong Bank draft, the sum mostly deposited in fugitive's name the Russo-Asiatic Bank in Hongkong.
Speaking briefly, the charges against the fugitive are, stealing the two cheques, embezzlement of two sums of $100,000 and $50,000, and fraudulent conversion of the two valuable securities and the proceeds to his own use. He is also charged with stealing a certain paying-out book. 1 shall have occasion to refer to the evidence on this later.
WAR in
Now it is admitted that it is not necessary to formulate specific charges on extradi- tion proceedings, and, furthermore, that the preferring of such specific charges is anusual. What is required is that the Magistrate shall be satisfied that the evidence produced against the fugitive is such as would justify the committal of the accused for trial here if the crimes alleged had been committed in the Colony. The Crown, however, for the purpose presumably of informing the fugitive definitely of what he had to meet, elected to prefer specific charges. and the result has been that long arguments have been addressed to the Court as if these charges had formed the subject of an indict- ment. The duty of the Court on this point is simple. and it's to ascertain whether there was evidence before the Magistrate upon which he could find-it is not necessary to go further-that an offence had been com- mitted by the fugitive in China according to our law which comes within the schedule of extradition crimes.
his
The learned Counsel for the fugitive criticised severely the judgment of tho Magistrate, and in particular as to delegating to himself the functions of a jury, and to his failure to give effect to the ruling in Wong Ka'Cheong. 1, H.E. L. R., p. 22, Now the powers of a Magistrate under Section 9 of the Chinese Extradition Ordi- nance are the same as if he were hearing an indictable offence under Section 76 of the Magistrates Ordinance 1890. The powers of a Magistrate under the Extradi- tion Act are fully dealt with in the notes in Biron and Chalmers and in Clarke on Extradition. Biron says,
except for the limitation as near as may be the Magis trate has exactly the same powers as if he were hearing an indictable offence. That limitation means as near FUS may be consistent with the Extradition Act 1870.
44
Apart from any limitation of the Magistrate's powers and jurisdiction expressed or implied in the Extradition Acts, the duty of a Magistrate is identical with, that of a Magistrate sitting under the Indictable Offences Act, ie, to consider whether there is a prima facie case against the accused of the crime of which he is * accused according to English Law and if so to commit him." Then the judgment in Wong Ka Cheong's case adopting this posi tion says: * But Section 10 of the Extradition Ordinance must clearly be readi subject to Section 76 of the Magistrates Ordinance of 1890. And by the second part of that article the Magistrate is to commit the prisoner if in his opinion the evidence ia sufficient to put the accused upon his trial for an indictable offence or if the evidence given raises a strong or probable presumption of the guilt of accused.' This provision is copied verbatim from the English Act, 11 and 12 Vict., C. 42, Fection 25. Then Clarks on Extradition as to the duties of a Magistrate appears to regard the discretion of a Magistrate in Extradition ordinary more limited than indictable charge. He says at p. 216:-" It: must be remembered that the Magistrate. investigating a case of demanded exhal
18
ов an
is not quite in the same position_
were deciding on a
1 his tim
COTE
73
1
I