The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-12-29
THE EXTRADITION CASE,
Supreme Court-In Chambers.

Supreme COurt-In Chambers.
Before Hon Judge MitchsI.
DHo 2S.-bs tie matter Of Alexander Hiltnsn cldiped by
ne British Government under TIE Act Of 7nay Faguios
aron q eAsyge q f@oeyy-Ths judge inquired Of the
United States Attorney If he ready for the decision
Of the Court In the case of 4aeilbonn.
Mr. 0'Conor said he not advised Of any change In
Affairs since yesterday which would Induce him TO make
any further remarks though he might possibly the day
after tomorrow; yet he had NO right to affirm that he
would. What oscurred yesterday had been properly
ported, and he had nothing further TO add now. &c.
suggested the Judge let the decision ssod
for couple Of days. 1t not the Intention OF
the government to blink the question BY tschnicatis
but IL not possible for the United States authorities
to discharge the shoud such be the decision Of this
court
this matter ~ the government have inmHted their
intention OF raising the question before higher tribunal
had examined the before the United States Attor
ney appeared in It, and intend to follow out the views
then formed. The conclusion have to IT, that the
prisoner be discharged ard that the order for dis
charge be served upon the United States Marshal.
The Judge then handed hts written opinion to the Clerk
II II ~ follows
The prisoner is brought up habess corpus issued
to Mr. Nelson Commissioner appointed by the United
States Circuit Court for this District uncer the Of
Congress the extradion Of fugvss other coun
tries pursuant to treaties With those countries and is
sued also to the United States Marshal for this district
Those officers return that the prisoner Ia the custody
Of the Marshal warrant issued by the
q complaint made oath before the Commissioner
charging the prisoner with having committed in England
the crime Of forgery upon the back OF bill Of exchnge
the warrant orders his arrest and he be brought be
fore the Commissioner that the evidence Of his cmna
ty might be heard and considered The prisoner
rested the ed OF November and the Both he ap
piled to the Commissioner that the examination should
take place. the natter aou ned to the 81 Of Dscsm
her, and then he insisted by h counsel that the exan
alton shouid longer be delayed On that occasion it
admitted by the counsel for the prosecution that he
would have further evidence than that which the
warrant ssued except the production of the document
alleged to forged An a6iournu emit WAS allowed not
with ndirg the objection OF the prisoner and after
wards this writ taken out and returned Ca the evil
dencs taken on the return It Appears that the only proof
on which the warrant issued and which the further
commitment Of the prisoner was claimed consisted OF
copies Of three dispositions taken ia England viz
George Leigh VIM. Brockdon and George Bryant-cspie
OF which were Pre- duced. Leigh states all the facts OF
the alleged forgery Broekdon and Bryant language
which, standing alone would mpute the crimes Of for
gerry the prisoner Bockdon ssyog that the end
ment "Cbas Macintosh h CO.. appearing the BILL is
forgery, rot written by him either Of his partners
nor authorized by them, and he believed it to be the
handwriting Of the prisoner But the exa nation OF
the two last persons tasen after that Leigh aud
each Of them refers to the preceding examination of
Bryant says nlo copy the endorsement thereon The
facts contained in that examination to the contents
Of the bill of and Of its endorsement must pre-
vail over those generel sfdavit especially Legh's
examination gives verbatim copy of tae bill and It's
dorsemens Leigh shows that the bin was irawn on the
I'd July, 1859, BY the Rank Of relsnd the Bank Of
CAB 70. Cd sterling, that 1t endorsed by Mra Half
cay wi hout restriction and not to orierthen end ssd
by BukhArd l. LohRe to A. l. Csmphausen by the latt
TO Kneller, and by him to Chas. Macintosh h Co. to
order Then follows this endorsement in which the al
r, ceived for Chas Macintosh Co., Alex Heilbonn
Nc Vine ss s s1ss Mo
Co J" il an imitation Of the hand xrtng Of Mr.. Hugh
Brley partner in the nrm, but that 1t not his hand
hs vssd S an s. Hhonn ana s a.
the undisgued han writing of the said Alex Habonn
lie also avs that the bill OF exchange to Mackin.
tosb Co. by letter and that it and the letter wers
reptiousy taken OF by the prisoner and
the prisoner hsd authority to such an endorse
ment That the prisoner fled from Enslsnd Lsigh
form
andum in Heilbonns pdwrting headed saccoun not
accounted for and among the items In that account
this bill Of exchange entered for f42 Is 3D. HIS
alfo sta tes that Hell bonn had besn clerk of Ma
Co. for two years and thai his duty collect out
standing book debts only and no had authority to
dorse bills OF exchange receive the thereof
that all such securities paid to the bankers Of
firm tn question now presented Is whether these facts
admitted to be true show that the prisoEer committed
forgery Two precisely similar Ia principle have
been twice decided in England, and in each II held
tsat the offence was not forgery 10 Rex Us Arscott
Carr Payne, 1857 the prisoner had endorsed on
bill OF exchange, payable to the order OF r. Ackmau
these words-"Receivs. for R. Aics man; G. Arscott"
On the trial the court held this forgery Little
dale, j. aid"I taks il that receipt for money
ia whiting the Of he for whom
But IN this case hs acts done by the prisoner were
r.ivipg for another person and signing bis nsme
Under there ercun stances the proner must be a,qut
ted upon the indictment" Vaughan, said:-"I am Of
the opinion and think it much better tn Il the
most guilty offender should escape than that the law
should be strained to meet particular Case" In Re-
si, s;. vs. White & Carr, ard Kirsia 4o4 the prisoner.
TcmliI this endorse Thomas
Tomlinson, Emmanuel White" Patison j.. apparently
to raise the question of law told the jury that if they
Of opinion that the prisoner at TIE time when he
signed the endorsement, had wully risrsp sentsd
that he came from Tominsor, with Intent to defraud
him or tie bsnkers anG had authority from mnson
they ought to find him guilty. sut he reserved
thu question for the fifteen judges. It vas argued
fully before them. and they "hed the conviction wrong
and that endorsing bill Of exchange under false as
sumption Of authority to endorse as per ,rocrdon
not forgery that being false making" 1t might not
6C nrafor IN
essence Of forgery that signs name of another
to psts 1t of the signature counterfeit of that
other Thi cannst be when the party openly and the
face OF the paper declares that signs the other
there he does counter felt the OF the other
attempt TO pass the signature as the sigpaturs o! that
other. The offence belongs to entirely dfs emit cass
OF Crimes and s not of those provided for In the
treaty this oounr, and Great B.ain Tina. coun
try from which we borrow most of views of law and
10 which the tfencs committed, has declared it not
to be rgery There no dispute about the facts and
with these two decisions before us concuIrpg
with the clear meaning term forgery there wouli
appear to be 70 reasonable doubt about the hw-from
the facts disclosed in these depoeons aud which con-
stitnte the crime with which the pers is ohsgea, he
cannot with propety be fad TO BE- charged In these
depcsi'ie ns with the crime of forgery 1t Is uunece
ssry to ray how far must be stated in ths com
plant made under OATH required by our act of Con
gees rcr even to say whether any facts need Do stated
but the charge Of 5ris Is made in general rms and
the complaint also contains oil the fact. which that
charge is made and the admitt facts it clearly ap
pears tina. such crime has been committed the com
plant IL en- dapr the general charge takes away
the feundat for the warrant The tn OF ndivi-
dual ang In general terms that part .ular crime
was committed never be received foundation for
any legn proceeding when the particular facts which he
states dsprove the charge-i Is not or him but for
ccnrts to cecde what is the character OF the offence
when the facts established Otherwise one might nv
arrested on charge for forgery when the complaint
showed that the only offence committed literary
forgery the OF the OF ,munander In mill
tary order by officer engaged in civil the side
in opposi.n to such commander In this too the
prisoner had general authority to collect book debts Of
the firm that gave him poser to sign the name Of the
m 10 receipts for those dahs: erd the limitation
his authority would not be known to the public and he
was engaged so far the pub could judge in collect
ing the prosecutors debts generally third persons would
be protected In thir Pas to him He too might
haze supposed that he had collect this debt
receipt for it. tie charge Of susr ptous obtaining the
bill ard letter be diegarded and it ought per hsps to
he dsregarded Leigh states of knowledge
which he had Of the prisoner committing that wrong
ard leaves in doubt whether the prisoner
presy restricted from receipng for bills merely had
special authority to collect book debts, from which
Leigh inferred that he restricted from the ether pow
err IL is at least extremely doubtful wbether forgery
can he committed By endorm not at ell essential
to the nesoistihty Of blu and it HIS seen held In our
Superior Court Ia araed opinion, THAT draft
epro Without restriction cnud not Aftarwa.d