1
1
+1
•
-
-5
•
2
Tai
זר וי
หาค
கநீ.. கள்ள
*#འ
M
+
+
ว
2
92
- 1
*
f10
+
Lee ke thet
ustices
marts
(9)
tact
Юл
k
+7
N
>י
too' dua
a place unless the usual courts dealing with criminals ozolus- ively were exercising their usual functions.
(x) That it was further contended on behalf of the Appellant that the said warrant fer surrender disolesed no valid cause of detention as under the previsions of the said Chinese Extradition Ordinance No) 7 of 1887 Extradition from Hongkong to China is limited to Chinese subjects and there is in such warranț an allegation that the Appellant was a Chinese subject ner was there any evidence before the magistarte upen which he could come to such decision.
(1) That the Preceedings in this matter bath before the said John Reskrudge Weed and the Full Court ware conducted in the name of the Űrewn by seliṣiters and Comsel retained and paid by Lung Chai Kwong the present Geverner General of the Prevince of Kwong Tme
The judgment of the Full Jourt on the said Rule Tisi for the issue of the writ 1o Eabeas Corpus was delivered by the said Full Jourt on the 3rd day of March 1914 discharging the Rule Nisi so far as it related to charges 1, 2 and 4 in the said Warrant for surrender on the following grounds:-
(a)
That there was some evidence before the Magistrate justify- ing his finding and giving him jurisdiction to order the surrender of the Appellant.
(b) That the anus was on the Appellant te affirmatively asta- blish that the offences for which his extradition were sought were of a political nature and that the evidends was not strong
enough to enable the Court te some to this conclusion.
(0) That it had been shown that the Appellant had been ordered
to be arrested on the ground that he had committed the said
alleged crimes by the Governor General of the Province of Kwang
Tung personally and thất it was not necessary that the Appellant
should have been accused before a tribumal exercising judicial
functions.
(012
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.