CO129-399 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [1-2] — Page 259

--

iv

!

પ

دان

vo) Inigoloj

To tad no mucivo Biedn

SIN

MI. DOLUB#

• Silg100 #104 M A

fu C

4 02

18.

257

IL. 937ng Y, ad dignu

tiis ni Ji KICŽVE

milpos TOTUR

7990019 Tel do

**Job kati

ILYAN ORAL TRUTO SUT

it ni dwG vedon ad LILY ST

C NOLJ RSUD ON

to quis son moiaioeb ent

na modeloeb nomland wipe.do? nud

()

soletiva wa JWT (9)

1:

Mi Vil

Dr (6)

事

1 TO JUCA

-mission of the alleged offence or identifying the document with the forgery of which the prisoner was charged. Osler, J., said: 'The evidence I I x does not come up to what is re- -quired, and would not have justified the magistrate in com- -mitting the prisoner had the offence been committed in this country'. Re Harsha, (1906) 7 0. W. R. 97, at page 103. "In Reg. v. Ganz, (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 93, at page 105, Kanisty,

J., says: 'In order to give the magistrate jurisdiction there must be a crime charged which is within the treaty, and the magistrate must have before him evidence such as would justify according to the law of England' (Canada) 'the committal for

trial of the prisoner if the crime had been committed in

England, and there must be a foreign warrant authorizing the

arrest,' etc.

*In this case the crime charged in the first warrant was that

the forgery, an no doubt the same crime is charged in the sec-

-ond warrant. But now it is proved that further additional and

new evidence has been discovered or will be forthcoming, where-

-by the deficiencies pointed out may and no doubt will be reme-

-died. Having regard to the character and the nature of extre- -dition proceedings, it appears perfectly competent to take

this course,

and no rights of the prisoner and no safeguards of

the law are thereby invaded.

"The law is very distinct that where there is no evidence or no sufficient evidence before the magistrate in these extradition matters, he is held to be without jurisdiction, and a commit- -tal for surrender is in such conditions an unwarrantable act in excess of his jurisdiction. Reg. v. Maurer, (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 513, at pages 515, 516.

"The magistrate is charged with the duty of considering whether

the evidence before him is sufficient according to law to

justify the committal of the accused for trial: he is not to determine and dispose of the case by giving judgment upon it,

but he states his opinion (if it be so) that there is a prim. facie case and on that ground issues his warrant of cormittal