16
facts on which the surrender is grounded in the depositions and not in the warrant.
(As to DESCRIPTION OF OFFENCE in warrant see ex parte Terruz, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 63; 48 L.J. Ex. 214; 14 Cox C.C. 153; 39 L.T. (N.S.) 502; 27 W.R. 170. R. v. Jacobi and Hiller, 46 L.T. (N.S.) 595, note.
In re Bellencontre, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (2) 122; 60 L.J.M.C. 83; 17 Cox C.C. 253;
55 J.P. 694.
In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277;
60 J.P. 132.)
17
being delivered to prisoner's order in Germany, and some in England, Nillins sent by post to such persons from Southampton forged bills of exchange in payment.
Upon a rule for a writ of habeas corpus it was Held: That the crimes were committed in Germany, and that Nillins was a "fugitive criminal" within the definition section (26) of the Extradition Act of 1870, and was within the first Article of the German treaty.
(See also R. v. Jacobi and Hiller, 46 L.T. (N.S.) 595, note.
R. v. Lavaudier and others, 15 Cox C.C. 329.)
IN RE MAURER.
Germany.
16th April, 1883.
QUEEN'S BENCH : FIELD and MATHEW, JJ.
52 L.J.M.C. 105; L.R. 10 Q.B.D. 513.
Upon an application for a rule for a writ of habeas corpus, it was Held That it was not competent for the Court to examine the weight of evidence, if there was reasonable evidence of an extradition crime for the Magistrate to act upon.
(As to POWER OF COURT OF KING'S BENCH upon application for a writ of habeas corpus, see Ex parte Huguet, 12 Cox C.C. 551; 29 L.T. (N.S.) 41.
In re Castioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T. (N.S.) 344;
17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 323.
In re Meunier, L.R. Q.B.D. 1894 (2) 415; 63 L.J.M.C. 198; 18 Cox C.C. 15.
In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C. 23.
In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277;
60 J.P. 132.
In re Guerin, 58 L.J.M.C. 42; 16 Cox C.C. 596; 53 J.P. 467; 60 L.T. (N.S.) 538;
37 W.R. 289.)
R. v. DE PORTUGAL. France.
29th, 30th October, 1885.
QUEEN'S BENCH: MATHEW and SMITH, JJ.
L.R. 16 Q.B.D. 487; 55 L.J. (Q.B.) 567; 34 W.R. 42.
Prisoner was employed by Lucas and Son to use his influence to obtain for them a contract for railway construction in France. They intrusted him with a cheque for £500 to open a credit in their names in one or two banks in Paris. This he was alleged to have misappropriated; as also a sum of £250 on a bill, as to the disposal of which he had received written instructions. He was committed for fraud by an agent.
Upon an application to make absolute a rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus:
Held: That he was not an "agent" within the meaning of section 75 of the Larceny Act. "In our judgment the other agent' mentioned in this section means one whose business or profession it is to receive money, securities, or chattels for safe custody or other special purpose, and the term does not include a person who carries on no such business, or profession, or the like." Rule absolute.
R. v. NILLINS. Germany.
11th July, 1884.
QUEEN'S BENCH: CAVE, DAY and SMITH, JJ.
53 L.J.M.C. 157.
Nillins from Southampton sent letters to persons in Germany containing the alleged false pretences, and upon these such persons parted with goods, some being delivered to prisoner's order in Germany, and some in England, Nillins sent by post to such persons from Southampton forged bills of exchange in payment.
(See now Larceny Act of 1901, replacing ss. 75 and 76 of Larceny Act of 1861.) (PROCEDURE ON APPEAL.-Counsel for the Crown opposed discharge when the prisoner was brought up on the return to the rule. The Court stated that in future they would only hear arguments against the application for a habeas corpus, on the understanding that there should be no further argument when the prisoner came up for discharge.)
(And see In re Castioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T. (N.S.) 344; 17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 328.)
0
515
!
16
facts on which the surrender is grounded in the depositions and not in the warrant.
(As to DESCRIPTION OF OFFENCE in warrant see ex parte Terruz, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 63; 48 L.J. Ex. 214; 14 Cox C.C. 153; 39 L.T. (N S.) 502; 27 W.R. 170. R. v. Jacobi and Hiller, 46 L.T. (N.8.) 595, note.
In re Bellencontre, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (2) 122; 60 L.J.M.C. 83; 17 Cox C.C. 253;
55 J.P. 694.
In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox 0.0. 277;
60 J.P. 132.)
17
being delivered to prisoner's order in Germany, and some in England, Nillins sent by post to such persons from Southampton forged bills of exchange in payment.
Upon a rule for a writ of habeas
corpus
it was
Held: That the crimes were committed in Germany, and that Nillins was a" fugitive criminal" within the definition section (26) of the Extradition Act
of 1870, and was within the first Article of the German treaty.
(See also R. v. Jacabi and Hiller, 46 L.T. (N.S.) 595, note.
R, v. Lavaudier and others, 15 Cox C.C. 329.)
IN RE MAURER.
Germany.
16th April, 1883.
QUEEN'S BENCH : FIELD and MATHEW, JJ,
52 L.J.M.C. 105; L.R. 10 Q.B.D. 513.
Upon an application for a rule for a writ of habeas corpus, it was
Held That it was not competent for the Court to examine the weight of evidence, if there was reasonable evidence of an extradition crime for the Magistrate to act upon.
(As to POWER OF COURT OF KING'S BENCH upon application for a writ of
habeas corpus, see
Ex parte Huguet, 12 Cox 0.C. 551; 29 L.T. (N.S.) 41.
In re Custioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 J.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T. (N.S.) 344 ;
17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 323.
In re Meunier, L.R. Q.B.D. 1894 (2) 415; 63 L.J.M.C., 1998; 18 Cox Q.C. 15.
In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C. 23.
In re Arton, LR. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277;
60 J.P. 132.
In re Guerin, 58 L.J.M.C. 42 ; 16 Cox C.C. 596 ; 53 J.P. 467 ; 60 L.T. (N.S.) 538;
37 W.R. 289.)
R. v. DE PORTUGAL. France.
29th, 30th October, 1885.
QUEEN'S BENCH:
MATHEW and SMITH, JJ.
L.R. 16 Q.B.D. 487 ; 55 L.J. (Q.B.) 567; 34 W.R. 42.
Prisoner was employed by Lucas and Son to use his influence to obtain for them a contract for railway construction in France. They intrusted him with a cheque for £500 to open a credit in their names in one or two banks in Paris. This he was alleged to have misappropriated; as also a sum of £250 on a bill, as to the disposal of which he had received written instructions. He was committed for fraud by an agent.
Upon an application to make absolute a rule nisi for a writ of habeas corputs :
Held: That he was not an [4
"agent" within the meaning of section 75 of the Larceny Act. "In our judgment the other agent' mentioned in this section means one whose business or profession it is to receive money, securities, or chattels for safe custody or other special purpose, and the term does not include a person who carries on no such business, or profession, or the like." Rule absolute.
R. v. NILLINS. Germany.
11th July, 1884.
QUEEN'S BENCH: CAVE, DAY and SMITH, JJ.
53 L.J.M.C. 157.
Nillins from Southampton sent letters to persons in Germany containing the alleged false pretences, and upon these such persons parted with goods, some
10529
(See now Larceny Act of 1901, replacing ss. 75 and 76 of Larceny Act of 1861.) (PROCEDURE ON APPEAL.-Counsel for the Crown opposed discharge when the prisoner was brought up on the return to the rule. The Court stated that in future they would only hear arguments against the application for a habeas corpus, on the understanding that there should be no further argument when the prisoner came up for discharge.)
(And see In re Castioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 LJ.M O. 22; 64
L.T. (N.8.) 344; 17 Cox 0.0. 225 ; 55 J.P. 328.)
0
515
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.