The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-10
THE GREAT BANK OF ENGLAND
FORGERY.

The Mcdonnell Habcas Corpus Case-Ar-
gument Upon the Writ-The Accused
Declared by the Prosecution to Have
Been a Convicted Forger in This City.
Yesterday the argument upon the writ OF habeas
corpus sued out in the United States Circuit Court
by George Mcdonnell, who is accused OF completely
in the great frauds upon the Bank OF England, was
continued before Judge Woodruff.
Mr.. Charles NJ Da Costa and Mr.. F. r. Marbury
appeared as counsel for the British government,
which has made demand upon the government of
the United States for the eXtraditon of the pris-
oner. Mcdonnell was present with his counsel
Mr.. Brooke and Mr.. Dos Passos.
ARGUMENT OF PRISONERS COUNSEL.
Mr. Brooke counsel for the prisoner, In the
course OF his argument in support OF the writ,
said the substance OF the crime should be set
forth, the nature and the time OF the forgery
There was nothing in the warrant specially de-
scribing the offence OF forgery. He, the prisoner,
was charged with forging two bills OF exchange in
London; but In the warrant the offence gener-
ally described, and this left the prisoner without
notice as to the particular offence he would have
to meet The complaint made upon informa-
ton and belief by Mr.. Archibald, the British Cen
sui, that the defendant at London, in conjunction
with Noyes and Bidwell, did forge two several
bills OF exchange on the Bank OF England, and did
conspire with the said persons commit this fraud.
There was variance to the description OF
the prisoner, between the mandate and the COM
plant. The mandate did not show that the person,
George Mcdonnell, charged in the requisiton, was
the same person. In 1912 the treaty included
clause to the effect that persons charged with
uttering forged paper should be given up requi-
stion the treaty in that respect differing from the
Jay Treaty OF 1894 which had reference to the crime
OF forgery only. The charge set out in the warrant
must be specific enough TO show that the Commits
sioner had authority TO act under the mandate.
There rsust be an allegation on the face Of the
complaint, referring to the mandate show
ing S,c tna h Ine case nne su one upon pom
President, and on which the requsition has been
made by the British government. In no part OF
the complaint was there an intimation that the
British government had made requisiton to the
government OF the United States. Judge Batch-
ford had held that that necessary and material
10 the proceeding. The warrant must necessarily
describe the offence and the circumstances sur
rounding 1t. The prisoner was not described in
the mandate as he is alleged In the warrant to be
described in the mandate. AS to the issuing OF the
mandate counsel said, under decision OF the
Court the Court could not go into any review OF
the circumstances which led the Executive to
issue II. There was another question upon
this allegation In the complaint and the
rant. There must be reciprocity between the gov
ernments OF both countries To the execution OF
this treaty, and the offences upon which extradi-
ton might be demanded should be offences against
laws common to both countries. Counsel quoted
from "Clark's Law OF Extraditonn in support OF
his argument. The mandate sufficient, but the
forgery should be set out specifically In the COM
plaint and the warrant. There must be set out on
the face OF the complaint and the warrant all that
was sufficient TO show the Jurisdiction OF the
Court. 1t must show on its face by descrip-
ton an offence common TO the jurisdiction
OF both countries, Counsel alluded TO the case of
the St Adams raiders. and said that II under the
decisions he had referred te-those relating TO
Heinrich and Farez-and II the points In respect 10
the warrant and the complaint were good, there
was, OF course, no;hing LETT for the Court but TO
discharge the relator. He submitted, as an ele-
mentary principle of law, that every intend
ment was to be taken against the Government
ana III favor OF the prisoner; that everything suff
clenL 10 give the Commissioner authority must
t pe amrmatlvely set out in the complaint. so
daat IN. tae prisoner rasn should have fun notice
this case that was the right Of the prisoner. The
mandate was issued on the 18th OF March, and the
within the power OF the British government to rive
a full and proper description OF the forgery
charged; The warrant was offered in evidence by
sued by the Lord Mayor Of London, to which he
The Court said this was not the time TO d,scuss
before the Commissioner.
Mr. Brooke said he would show that there was
no proof OF forgery having been committed at ALL
The prisoner had right TO demand proof OF the
fact that CRIME had been committed II complaint
had been made against him. From the 18th of
March, when the mandate was Issued, TO the 25th
when the prisoner was examined before the Com
missioner, there was ample time for the British
government to present evidence that the crime OF
forgery had been committed, and they we're not
thereafter entitled TO deprive him OF his liberty
for the purpose OF getting evidence OF the
land land had Stated at the Examination aa that that
he had dispositions in his possession. but that they
were not properly authenticate and ne then said
that special messenger had left England tnat day
with dispositions properly authenticated. the
prisoner was detained In custody by reason OF the
failure OF the British government to present ev
dence against him. When crime was charged the
FIRST inquiry should be II o crime was committed