CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5] — Page 56

55

It is argused that seeing this claim is being made and pressed in the Civil Courts, the jurisdiction of all criminal

gourts in the matter is ousted.

Before I can agree to the proposition that I have no

jurisdiction in this matter on this account, I must be satis

fied that the claim made is made by the fugitive honestly

and bona fide. I have no evidence before me from which te

draw the conclusion that it has been so made. The fugitive will therefore not be discharged on this ground.

Sixthly, the discharge of the fugitive is claimed on

the ground that no precise charges have been framed by the

Grown under Chinese law, or rather on the ground that no

attempt has been made by the Crown to bring evidence to show

that the facts elicited in this enquiry constitute specified

offences against Chinese Law.

The duty of the Magistrate is to consider whether the

evidence discloses an offence included in the schedule to

the Ordinance, and if it does dsiclose suok an offence, then

to commit the fugitive for surrender without making a fur-

ther investigation of Chinese law. At the same time it is

also his duty to receive evidence tendered to show that the

facts proved in the enquiry do not constitute a crime under

Chinese Law; but it would seem not to be within his province

to adjudicate upon such evidence.

It is another question (and also one outside the pro-

vinoe of the Magistrate to decide) whether the engagement

given by the Chinese Government is sufficiently definite to

protect the fugitive.

Lastly it remains to consider whether Extradition Pro-

oeedings for surrender to the Kwong Tung Government can be

maintained, while martial law prevails in Kwong Tung, This

seoma to ne to be a question entirely for the executive

authorities.

(1)