The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-11 00:00:00

••• •
M. Dondayne, who gave his evidence in French, W&1
then sworn. He said he lived, on the 19th February, et
Ne. 10, Arutidel-place. On the morning of that day he
was al rined at a noise in the house The door of the
room in which lie was sitting with his wife was force,'
open, and the inspector and two constables in pia
clothes, with a Freebman, entered the room, and toe
inspector seiv.d him by the collar, and said he wss
there for the purpose of assisting in his extradition frofe
the country. The inspector showed no warrant or other
authority for this proceeding. His room was searched 11i
if he was a robber. lie was taken into the street asa
held by the arm while being conveyed to Vine-street
station 'house, and was locked up in a small cell in the
station-house. He remained in durance about eight
hours, and during that period he was not taken berme s
magistrate, nor before the Commissioners or Police.
About five o'clock in the afternoon he was told he might
leave the station-house.

Cross-examined--Was a tailor, and carried on busintss
formerly at St. Omer. Did not pay his debts before be,
quitted France; but had time been allowed he shock'
nave teen in a condition to pay his creditors. Left Sr.
Omer on the 28th June, 1849. Brought away some
goods, but lett a deal of property b: hind in his house 111
St. Omer, sufficient he considered to pay his debts. Did
not know whetlitr he was a bankrupt in France, though
it was probable since he had left he had been made
bankrupt. Had received no intimation of being a bank'
rupt before he quittedFl a72c e.

Mr. HaanwicK did not want this sort of evidence.
He wished to know what the authorities of St. Omer
thought of the proceedings of the complainant; whether
his acts amounted, according to the French law, to
fraudulent bankruptcy.
Mr. Ablett said this would not alter the case; for
nothing in the international law would justify the
spi,ctor in the proceedings he had adopted.
Mr. HARDWICK sa.d it might have an effect on the
character of the charge, if it could be shown. that the
inspector had acted ou some document, which might
possibly prove a justification for taking the complainant
into custody.
Mr. Wontner said he was prepared to show the autho'
rity under which the inspector acted.
Mr. Ablett said, if it shoul I turn out there was 0°
sufficient authority, he hoped the circumstancesof un'
necessary violence would have their proper weight.
Mr. Wontner said, according to the law, if a bank'
rupt absconded from France and secreted himself in this
country, on a requisition to the French Ambassador, en
application would be made to the Foreign Minister Wei
and the police would then be invested with authority to
assist in the extradition of the bankrupt. A requisition,
iu the present case, had been sent to the proper autho-
rities, and the Foreign-office had sent a notification to
the police, and on this notification the inspector bad
acted. When the complainant was taken into custody,
Mr. Jardine inspected the papers relating to the French
process, and, finding one document was wanting, in
was of opinion the complainant could not be banded
over to the French authorities until that link was suir,
plied, and the complainant was in consequence release'
from the custody of the police. He would further stater
that the French courts had, since this transaction, con'
demned the complainant to fire 3 ears' imprisonment for
his conduct with reference to his bankruptcy. He was
quite sure that the court, under all the circumstances,
would see that the inspector had done no more than hie
duty in acting on the notification to the police in sr'
resting the complainant ; and, with respect to the charge,
of improper violence, he would only refer to the general
good conduct of the inspector, and the character he had
always borne since he joined the police.
A French notary from St. Omer proved that he 0303°
over to this country with official papers, demanding
the extradition of the complainant as a fraudulent bank'
rupt. The papers were lodged at the French emboss'',
and Lord Palmerston's notification was immediately oh'
tained. After the notification was obtained, witneee
applied to Inspector Whall to take the complainant
into custody. Witness went with the inspector to the
complainant's lodgings, and gave the complainant into
the custody cf the inspector. Afterwards proceeded to
Bow-street, and one of the magistrates told him there
was a paper deficient, and on this account he did not
tyke the complainant back to France. Was present
during the arrest of the complainant, and could state
that no violence was used by Inspector Whall.
The official document was then put in, together
with a copy of the sentence of the French court on the
complainant.
Cross-examined—Had power to execute a crisoinel:
process. The notification was in the name of Lowo
Dondayne. Knew the complainant to be tb°
person referred to in the notification, though he now es.
sumed the name of Charles Dondayne. Was certain the
complainant was a bankrupt when he was taken into
custody on the 19th of February.
Mr. Ablett contended that the inspector had exceeded,
his duty in acting on the notification, in place of first
applying for an English magistrate's warrant. The no'
tification was addressed to a police magistrate, and a Inv
gistrate was applied to after the arrest; but, in the sh:
sence of a material document, the magistrate would 110;
grant a warrant. The inspector might have considered
be was only doing his duty, but he contended our 1011.
nicipal laws did not justify the proceedings of the in"
spector.

Mr. HARDWICK said the whole matter turned on the
question whether the requirements of the law had Veil
compliel with in the arrest of the complainant. The
Act of Parliament was very complicated, and it could
hardly be expected that a police-officer would be IaPJ.,
master of its details. It appeared that an irregularity
had been committed in the first instance by the
French officer, who applied for the assistance of the
police to take the complainant into custody, under
the authority of the notification from the Foreign'
office, instead of . first obtaining a warrant frons
magistrate. It was natural to suppose that a police'
officer should believe he was justified in acting on the
request of a French officer, armed with a notification
from the Foreign-office, but as the law required that
application for a warrant should be made in the first lo
stance to a magistrate, it would be better, to pretest
:
irregularity for the future, if the police were made sc,.,
quainted with this provision, so that they might conapq
with all the steps of a somewhat complicated Act of Pars
lianaent. Under the circumstances of the case, con'
sidering that this was the first case of the kind in which
a police-officer had been called upon to put the interne'
tional law into flee—considering also that the co 03;
plainant was clearly identified as the right person, an:
that he had been subjected by the French court to fie
}'ears' imprisonment in the galleys as a fraudulent b 10.:
rapt, he thought it was impossible to illy that the office'
had neglected or violated his duty. With !aspect to the
charge of undue violence, that had been sufficiently ile"
gatived by the evidence of the French officer, and W 0
also opposed to the well-known character of the insper
tor. The charge therefore must be dismissed.
Mr. Beresford, the superintendent, said he would malts
it known in his division that constables wore not to assist
foreign police, unless a magistrate's warrant was fill'
produced.