FJ
}
•
ho
Lor drafta Pablaining payment
also
were duently
It was contended on behalf of the that the act of embezzlement began in Canton and was concluded in Hongkong and Reg. v. Holmes, 12 Q.B.D., 23, was relied on. In that case the defendant wrote and posted at Nottingham a letter addressed to G, at s town in France containing a false pretence by means of which be induced G. to send from France to Nottingham a draft for £150 which defendant then cashed. It was held that there was jurisdiction to try the defendant at Nottingham, the pretence hav- ing been made at Nottingham, where
the money obtained by means it was received. Lord Coleridge C. J. said, "of the two necessary ingredients the offence both take place in Nottingham. It may be that one important part of the offence taking place in Nottingham would be sufficient, but here both ingredients take place in Nottingham." That case has ne bearing on this; the alleged conversion int money of the valuable security delivered * the fugitive was in Hongkong and not in China, and in my opinion the condition necessary to sustain a charge of embezzle ment in China were not complied with.
of
Now in regard to the alleged theft of the payment-out book. The evidence is simpl and I have carefully considered it and havi arrived at the conclusion that the question of guilty intention is within the Magistrate discretion to decide, and that he would bi within his right in considering all the circumstances sufrounding the fugitive': action in coming to a decision on this point. It appears that the fagitive was himself employed in the Treasury and that it wa his ordinary duty to examine the book ir question, which he obtained from another Treasury official, Ngai Ur-ping, ac 4th August, which as a fast was the day tha Chan Kwing-ming fled from Canton; and that he was seen to take the book into the street and that it was never returned or seer again, nor was the fugitive. The suggestion presumably is that he took the book to scree hireself from the discovery of defalcation although there was no evidence of it. I an nable to say that there is no evidence o larceny which will justify this Court i saying that the Magistrate in this particula has exceeded his jurisdiction, or that ther was no prima facie case upon which th defendant could have been committed fo trial on an indictable charge.
As to the contention put forward on behal of the fugitive that the Crown should havı proved the law of China which is applicab to the offences in question, intimated in the course of the hearing th view which I took. I have read the view which are fully expressed by my learner brother on the point and I entirely agre with the deductions at which he has arriver and I have nothing to add.
On the contention that the alleged offenc if an offence at all is a political one, I shal dest with briefly.
Firstly, the onus of establishing that th offence is of a political character is upon th fugitive and if the Magistrate decides tha it is not of a political character his decision is subject to review by this Court. B Section 4 of the Ordinance a fugitiv shall not be surrendered if the offence in espect of which his surrender is demande: iņšne of a political character or if he pres
the satisfaction of the Magutrate that' the requisition for his surrender haa in fact been made with a view to try to punish him. for an offence of a political character. The Coads of proof is upon the person who seeks to be discharged (see judgment of Hawking J. at p. 162, in ra Castioni, 1891, 7 Q.B.). Then what is the evidence? The Tutuk's order (Exhibit 8) upon which the drafts were received "to remit the money to Shanghai to be sent in turn to Nanking to be used as Military expenditure." drafts as already pointed out were made. out at Canton to the fugitive in his own. name and were subsequently negotiated by him and the amount or part of it deposited in his own account in a Hongkong Bank.
The
80