Some corrections and formatting have been made.
Either the case must be dealt with here as one of Piracy Jure Gentium, and if that offence has been committed within our jurisdiction, it is not within the Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, as decided in the case of R. v. Ternan and others, 9 Cox. Crim. Ca. 522. On the other hand, if the offence be not Piracy Jure Gentium, but an offence against the Municipal Laws of the United States, our Tribunals have no jurisdiction to entertain the charge, and the Prisoners can only be detained under the Provisions of the Act 33 and 34 Vict. c. 76 giving effect to the Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and the United States of America.
(Signed) Julian Pauncefote, Attorney General.
Hong Kong, 11th April, 1885
少
been made.
Either the
with here
case must be dealt
as one of Pirney Jure
Gentium and if that offence has
within
our
been committed it is one Jurisdiction and not within the Extradition Freaty between Great- Drition and the Writech States as
decided in the case of P. v. Ternan and others 9 Cox. Crim. Ca. 522.- On the other hand if the offence be not Siracy Jure Gentium, bab
offence against the Municipal Laws of the Mited States our Fubunals have no jurisdiction to entertain the charge and the Prisoners can only be detained under
Au
300
the Provisions of the act band 7 Tick:
c. 76 giving effect to the Extradition Fenty between Great Britain and the United States of America.
(Signal) Julian Pannecfoten,
Attorney General.
Song Korny, 11th April, 1885
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.