The Sun.
London, England, 1844-10-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

I JUDGES' CHAMBERS, SERGEANTS INN.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
IN THE MATTER OF JACQUES BASSET.
It will be in the recollection of our readers that, under
the head of our Mansion-house report of Tuesday, the
24th inst., there appeared a report of an application to
the Lord Mayor for the committal, under the recent Act
passed last year, to carry into effect the convention
agreed to between the French Government and the
authorities of this country, for " the mutual surrender
in certain cases of persons fugitive from justice." The
result of that application, it will also be remembered,
was the committal of the prisoner, who was charged with
the offence of fraudulent bankruptcy in France, to the
custody of the keeper of the Giltspur-street Compter.
Since that committal, a writ of habeas corpus had been
granted by Mr. Justice Wightman, and notice had been
served upon the Lord Mayor, and upon Messrs. Robinson
and Duvry, the prosecutor's attorneys, stating that, by
virtue of the writ of habeas corpus so issued, the pri-
soner would be brought up this day, in order that he
might be discharged out of custody as to the commit-
ment by which he was now detained in the custody of
the keeper of the Compter. The case excited the
greatest interest, and the avenues to the Judges' Cham-
bers were crowded by a large body of foreigners, anxious
to know the result of this, the first attempt to carry into
effect the object of the mutual convention. The prisoner
was brought up in the custody of one of the officers of
the Compter.
Mr. E. James appeared as Counsel on behalf of the
prosecutor (Mr. Dubois) to appose the motion ; and Mr.
M. Chambers was in attendance on behalf of the pri-
soner.
The officer handed in the return to the writ, which set
forth the warrant of committal, as follows :
" To all and every the constables and other officers of
the peace for the city of London and the liberties
thereof, whom these may concern, and to the keeper
of Giltspur-street Prison, in London.
' " These are, in her Majesty's name, to command 7ou
and every of you forthwith to convey and deliver into
the custody of the said keeper the body of Jacques Bas-
set, being charged before me, one of her Majesty's Jus-
tices of the Peace in and for the said city and liberties,
by the oaths of Philip Antoine Mathieu and others, taken
and sworn in the presence and hearing of the said
Jacques Basset, for that he, the said Jacques Basset, is
accused of having committed in France the crime of
fraudulent bankruptcy (as appears by the warrant of
arrest, issued by a competent judge in France, and duly
authenticated before me, and as also appears by the war-
rant of her Majesty's. Principal Secretaries of State, re-
quiring me to take cognisance of such crime), the said
crimes and the nets done being clearly set forth and
proved before me by the oaths of the said Philip Antoine
Mathieu and others, and by the depositions of several
witnesses taken in France, and duly proved by the said
Philip Antoine Mathieu and others ; whom you, the
said keeper, are hereby required to receive, and him in
your custody safely keep, until he shall be discharged by
due course of law, and for your doing so this shall be
to you and each of you a sufficient warrant.
" Given under my hand and seal, the 23d day of Sep-
tember, 1844.

" WILLIAM MAGNAY, Mayor."
Mr. E. JAMES, in support of the commitment, said
that the present case was one of the utmost importance,
as being the first which had arisen out of the Conven-
tion Act passed last year. He, however, felt it his duty,
without entering into the facts and merits of the case, to
take a preliminary objection, and to submit, that the re-
lief afforded by the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Act
could not apply to the prisoner. The return to the writ
which had just been read, and which must be presumed
to be true until it was impeached, stated that the party
was imprisoned for a crime committed in France. He
.therefore was not in custody for any offence against the
laws of this country—.he was not a subject of the Crown,'
but a fugitive criminal from France. Moreover, he was
a subject of the King of the French, and the first ques-
don which arose was, whether the writ of habeas corpus
could in such a case be allowed ?
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN remarked that he should not
take judicial notice as to whether the • prisoner was a
French or an English subject. The simple question be-
fore him was, whether or not the prisoner should be
discharged or remanded. The gaoler to whose custody
he had been committed brings him here, and it was 'for
him (Mr. Justice Wightman) only to say whether he
was properly or improperly in that custody.
Mr. E. JAMES repeated his objection, and added that
the better course would have been for the prisoner to have
taken out a rule nisi, calling upon the prosecutor to show
cause why he (the prisoner) should not be discharged
out of custody.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN concurred, but added, that as
the prisoner had now been brought up he was bound to
decide whether or not he should be sent bark or dis-
charged. He (Mr. Justice Wightman) should therefore
entertain the application.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS, on behalf of the prisoner, said,
that as the depositions which had been taken before the
_ _

Lord Mayor liadnot been returned, he (Mr. M. Chain

hers) was necessitated to confine the objections he was
about to raise to the terms of the warrant of commitment
set forth in the return to the writ of habeas corpus. On
that warrant, and upon the construction of the Coneen-
sion Act, a most important question arose. That Act
received the royal assent on the 22d of August last year,
and was entitled " An Act for giving effect to a Conven-
tion between her Majesty and the King of the French
for the apprehension of certain offenders." It recited the
convention, of which the ratifications were exchanged in
London on the 13th of March, 1843, by which it was
agreed " that the high contracting parties should, on re-
quisition made in their name, throagh the medium of
their respective diplomatic agents, deliver up to justice
persons who, being accused of the crimes of murder
(comprehending the crimes designated in the French
penal code by the terms assassination, parricide,
infanticide, and poisoning), or an attempt to
commit murder, or of forgery, or of fraudulent
bankruptcy committed within the jurisdiction of the
requiring party, should seek an asylum or should be
found within the territories of the other." The statute
provided that upon certain notice the Convention Act
might be put an end to by either party, and then came
the enacting clause, which followed the terms of the re•
cital, and provided " that in case requisition be duly
made pursuant to the said convention in the name of his
Majesty the King of the French by his Ambassador or
other accredited diplomatic agent, to deliver up to jus-
tice any person accused of any of the crimes recited and
set forth, it shall be lawful for one of her Majesty's
Principal Secretaries of State, or in Ireland for the Chief
Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by war-
rant under his hand and seal, to signify that such requi-
sition has been so made, and to require all justices of the
peace and other officers of justice within their several
jurisdictions to govern themselves accordingly, and to
aid in apprehending the person so accused, and commit-
ting such person to gaol for the purpose of being deli-
vered up to justice, and thereupon it shall be lawful fir
any magistrate or other person having power to commit
for trial persons accused of crimes against the laws of
that part of her ,Nlajesty's dominions in which such
supposed offender shall be found to examine upon oath
any persons touching the truth of such charge, and to
commit the person so accused to gaol, there to remain
until delivered pursuant to such requisition as afore-
said." The second section provided, that copies of
the depositions upon which the original warrant had been
granted might be received in evidence. On this statute
he (Mr. M. Chambers), in substance, had to submit
;hat the magistrate's warrant of commitment, which, in
fact, was the only document before his Lordship, ought ,
to show in the first place tha the magistrate had due
authority to deal with the subject matter of the charge
upon which he had committed the party to custody ; and
in order to give him that authority, it ought to be set
forth distinctly on the face of the warrant that all the
preliminary cautionary steps provided by the statute had
been complied with. He would take his objections to
the warrant i❑ the order in which they stood. First of
all, he ohjected,that upon the face of the warrant there
appeared nothing as to a requisition having been made
by the French authorities to the Secretary of State to
deliver up a party charged with any of the offences men-
tioned in the Act of Parliament. Secondly—He objected
that it did not set forth that the Secretary of State had
granted h s warrant under his hand and seal. Thirdly
—lt was nut stated when or where the fraudulent bank-
ruptcy was charged to have been committed. Fourthly
—The warrant did not set forth that the Judge in France
was duly authorised to take cognisance of the offence
charged. Fiftl—lt, did not state that the offence was
committed within the territories of the King of the
French. Sixth—lt did not set forth the evidence upon
which the magistrate had committed the individual to
gaol. Seventh—That the offence charged was not
stated with sufficient distinctness and certainty ; and,
lastly, he had to submit that the conclusion of the war-
rant which authorised the detention in custody of the
prisoner " until discharged by due course of law," was
bad, inasmuch as it was not in the terms of the special
authority created by the statute, or pursuant to the re-
quisition necessary to be made to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN asked Mr. James what
answer he could make to the last point raised by Mr.
Chambers?

Mr. JAMES replied, that the 4th section of the Act
provided, that when any person committed under that
statute should not be delivered up pursuant to the requi-
sition within two calender months after such committal,
any of the judges were empowered upon application on
behalf of the par'y so committed (after reasonable no-
tice) to order his discharge out of custody. lle (Mr.
James) therefore maintained that the warrant ordering
' the detention until discharged by due course of law was
good.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS contended that the commitment
ought to have been in the alternative, and should have
ordered the detention of the prisoner until delivered up
pursuant to the requisition, or discharged by due course
of law. The commitment in this ease had been made under
a special authority, and that special authority ought to
have been fully set forth in the warrant. For this he
had the authority of " Stephen Nash, 2d William Black-
stone, 805, 806. That was a return to a writ of habeas
corpus, in which it was stated that the prisoner was coma- ,
mined until discharged by due course of law. The
terms of the statute under which the commitment had
been made had not been followed. The prisoner had
been committed for refusing to answer the question
support of of
s
whether or not he was a Jesuit, and it was contended, in
the statute) thabeastut)
corpus, that the commitment
found sureties. The CouOrutg,
hatftetroarhgaulmeent or
beenh
held
until he
answered the question, or
that
gave proof of his innocence
the special authority ought to have been set forth, and
" that the
conclusionrmnTri That toAthme_iscertainly warrant wasiii
Itr.
Justice autho-
rity,itisaAinz
cases nteperoecisneldyea in
thatP the case cited was that
of a commitment in execution, whereas the
present was
only a commitment for safe custody. Suppose there
should be no requisition to deriver up the pri
he would, at the end of two months, be entitled tosoner per-
,

Pet freedom, and on application to any of the Judges
be discharged by due course of law. He (Mr. James)
repeated his objection that the prisonor in this case, a
fugitive criminal from a foreign country, not located
within the realms of her Majesty, not charged with any
offence against the laws of this kingdom, was not en-
titled to the writ of habeas corpus, and therefore was not
entitled to his discharge. The question was one of con-
siderable importance, and he (Mr. James) had reason to
believe had excited great interest in another quarter—
he meant at the Home-office. Both the statute 3I st
Charles IL, the first Habeas Corpus Act, and the 56th
George 111., the last Act, stated the intention of the
Legislature to be to relieve the subjects of the Crown
from improper and illegal restraint. To be entitled to
relief under the provisions of those statutes, the party
claiming it must be a subject or quasi subject of the
Crown. The writ, therefore, in this case could not issue
ex debito justifies, for, in the first place, the prisoner was
not a subject of the Queen, and, secondly, he was not
charged with the commission of any offence against the
laws of this realm.

Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN remarked that the same point
had, he believed, been raised in the case of the Canadian
prisoners, who were brought to this country in execu
tion, and the sentence of transportation passed upon
them for crimes committed in Canada.
Mr. JAMES submitted that the case of the Canadian
prisoners did not bear upon that now under considera-
tion, inasmuch as they were British subjects, and the
offences of which they had been convicted were offences
committed within the British dominions. If the prisoner
now before his Lordship was discharged, it would amount
to ajotel abrogation of the Convention Act.

Mr. %%SECO WIGEITMAN—No, certainly not ; because,
if discharged from the commitment, he may be taken
again in ten minutes, and detained in custody under a
warrant drawn up in the proper form.
Mr. JAMES—Your
the prisoner if the necessary depositions were here, but
they hare not been returned.

kr. Justice WIGHTMAN said that without pronouncing
any decision upon the matter, which certainly was one of
vast importance, he thought the beat coarse to pursue
would be to treat it as though the prisoner had obtained
a rule nisi, calling upon the prosecutor to show cause
why he (the prisoner) should not be discharged out of
custody, and to adjourn its discussion until the first day
of the ensuing Michaelmas Term, when it would be
heard before the full Court at Westminster. In the
meantime the prisoner must be remandeJ.
The prisoner applied to be committed to the Queen's
Bench prison, but the application was refused on the
ground that he could only be detained under the autho-
rity of the Lord Mayor's warrant of commitment. He
was accordingly taken back to Giltspur-street Compter.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Sept. 30.