瞍
41386
No. 50.
(BRITISH HONDURAS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Case oj F. C. Trejeda, a fugitive criminal from Mexico: question as to the interpretation/
MY LORD,
Section 10 of the Extradition Act of 1870.]
Royal Courts of Justice,
November 9, 1906. WE were honoured by your Lordship's commands signified to us by Mr. Ber- tram Cox in his letter of the 17th October last stating that he was directed by your Lordship to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion on a question which has arisen in British Honduras as to the interpretation of Section 10 of the Extradition Act, 1870.
That it would be seen from the accompanying despatch from the Officer Administering the Government of that Colony that the District Commissioner of Belize made an order of discharge in the case of F. C. Trejeda, a fugitive criminal from Mexico, on the ground that the document which purported to be the Mexican warrant authorizing his arrest was not a warrant within the meaning of the Act and that the Acting Chief Justice upheld his decision. That the Acting Chief Justice also raised, but did not decide, the question whether he had any jurisdiction to quash the order of discharge on the return to a writ of certiorari.
That your Lordship would be glad if we would take the papers into our con- sideration and report:-
-
(1) Whether we concurred in the judgment of the Acting Chief Justice uphold- ing the decision of the District Commissioner?
(2) If not, whether there was a reasonable probability of the judgment being reversed on appeal by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and
(3) If so, whether, having regard to the importance of the general question involved, an appeal was desirable?
1
That your Lordship would be glad to receive our opinion at an early date, since it was necessary to decide whether the appeal lodged by the Colonial Govern- ment should be proceeded with or not.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report-
your
That (1) in our opinion there is some difficulty in saying that, on the face of the document in question, it authorises the arrest of the accused, and the question must depend on the effect which would be given to it by Mexican law. If by Mexi- can law the document of itself authorises arrest, then the decision of the Acting Chief Justice appears to be wrong, but if by Mexican law some further document is required before arrest is authorised, then his decision is right.
(2) Quite apart from other difficulties in the way of an appeal, we think that certiorari does not lie in this case, and, therefore, that no appeal should be lodged:
We are, &c..
JOHN L. WALTON. W. S. ROBSON.
The Right Honourable
The Earl of Elgin, K.G..
&c..
&c..
&c.
23 Wt 1819 11:06 DS
5 -26480
I PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
PLIFIC.O.
.885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO