The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-03-26
Fanny Gray, Brought from Lon
don, Identifies the Prisoner.
HOW tine ENeusH DETECTIVES WORK.
The Prisoner Remanded for Two Week.
TO Await the Arrival Of the Depo-
sitions from London.
Am Attachmen Served
Upon KelsO.

Gently arrested In this port on board the steamer
Ihurlngia, was examined before United States
Commissioner Gutmau, at the Commissioners ONCE
in Nassau street
Mr.. r. F. Marbury and Mr.. Charles M. Da
Costa OF the firm OF Blatchford, Seward, GriswOld
& Da Costa, appeared as counsel on behalf Of the
British government, which has made demand for
the extraditon OF the prisoner. Mr.. E. M. Archi-
bald the British Consul, was also present.
MIR. J. r. Fellows, Mr.. Charles w. Brooke and Mr..
J. r. Dos Passos attended as counsel for the
accused.
Mr. Brooke made number Of preliminary objec-
tons to the warrant and mandate, all OF which
were overrulcd, with the understanding that he
might restate and argue them at o future stage Of
| the case.
TESTIMONY OF A LONDON DETECTIVE.
Henry Webb sworn-I am sergeant OF the de-
tective police of the city OF London; have been
1fty-twO years connected with the police In Lon
don; have been twenty years sergeant; arrived
in this city yesterday; brought warrant for the
arrest OF George Mcdonnell; have the warrant;
the warrant is signed by the LORD Mayor, Sir sgd
ney Ii. waterlow; he Is the chief criminal magis-
trate OF the city Of London. This was objected to
by counsel for prisoner as not the way OF proving
the fact. The evidence was objected to, but
allowed.) l have seen Sir Sydney II. Waterlow
write hundreds of times; the signature shown me
Is his signature; received the warrant from the
solicitors of the Bank of England, Messrs Fresh
fields, and brought it to this country.
Counsel for prisoner objected to the warrant
because there was no proof Of the jurisdiction Of
the Lord Mayor; and second, because the war
rant is warrant under seal, and there is no
proof OF the seal; and, third because there is no
evidence OF an offence committed within the juris
dcton OF the British government; and, fourth
even II, In other respects, 1t were competent EVIL
dence. 1t was an informal paper and recited no
offence within the jurisdiction Of the British gov
eminent. There was no allegation Of jurisdiction
in the warrant; 1t merely asked that the prisoner
should be brought before the Lord Mayor at the
city OF London, and the Court could not take Judi
ca Notice Of the TACT that the city of London was
| in England.
The evidence was allowed.
| Witness said This warrant was placed In my
hands for the purpose OF having IL executed
| Mr.. Brooke said there was no authority given to
| the witness In the warrant to execute 1t.
have seen the Lord Mayor write hundreds OF times;
know Messrs. Freshhelds to be solicitors for the
Bans 0i Ior naye mad business C.
| the bank.
By Mr.. Marbury-Have you frequently had war.
rants placed in your hands for execution against
| Offenders In the city OF London
Objectedt to.
The Commssioner-what is the object of the
| Mr.. Marbury-To show that the warrant is in the
usual form for the arrest OF Offenders In the city Of
| London.
| Mr.. Brooke also made another objection to the
warrant, as not authenticated by any proper sicer
| under the act OF 1860
The evidence was allowed.
The witness replied that he had.
TESTIMONY OF FRANCES GRAY.
Frances Gray, fashionaby- dressed young wo-
| man, sworn and examined by Mr.. Da Costa. She
resae 81 80 ths street ffmSo
name OF Mcdonnell in Stanley street, London this
8. Do you know where he then lveds A. In St.
In March Of this year went to the city Of Liverpool
at the request OF the prisoner.
Q; For what purpose
A. expected to meet Mr.. Mcdonnell there to
come TO New York with him; had a ticket; / ar
rived at Liverpool on Wednesday or Thursday, 9Th
or 9Th OF March; think it said on the ticket that
March. This evidence was objected to as
immaterial, and Overruled Exception taken)
sn ed to Mr.
did net turn up at Liverpool; saw Mr.. Mcdonnell
the last time in Londen at Euston station on the
9Th Instant as was leaving for Liverpool at half
past nine at night; saw him in Gettys at the
West End; he called nae out and gave ne some
o. What II anything, did the prisoner say to You
in regard to your going to Uverpeolg A. He said
Q. on your return to Londsn did you 60 to the
prisoners rooms In st. James place A. Yes;
went there about nine O'Clock in the morning;
that was saturday, March s; did not see him
there; to-day is the first time have seen him
since parted frsm him for Liverpool; l first be-
last.
Q. Did you ever see him in company with man
named Moves?
Counsel objected to this question: as it was the
duty OF the Commissioner to ascertain, as If he
were Judge sitting to decide the case, whether
an offence under the treaty had been committed.
There must be legal proof to prove the completely
Of Mr.. Noyes with the prisoner in the alleged Tor
The Commissioner thought the objection well
taken, and that the proof at present offered was
Mr.. Da Costa said they could not be held to the
strict line OF proof IN preliminary inquiry They
would assnredy give evidence to connect the pris-
Mr.. Marbury observed that, having taken part in
many extraditon cases in the city OF New York,
prisoner was somewhat novel, The flight OF the
prisoner, his being found in this country and not
things the commissisner should take cognizance
OF. Any evidence which tended to shsw the GRIM
inality OF the accused was entirely pertinent IN
Mr.. Brooke referred the Court to the Farez and
Heinrich cases, and went on to say that no OFFENCE
iected TO the admissisn Of the evidence until the
forgery was proved 1t was utterly inadmisSlble
on the ground Mat there was no proof Of any
Mr.. Da Costa, in reply to the Commissioner said
that the prisoner was charged IN completely with
others-namely, Noyes, Warren and Bidwel-and
he proposed TO show that the witness had seen the
prisoner in company with Noyes in London, ana
proposed TO show the sane in relation TO Warren
who, II reports be true, had been arrested In
Havana.
The Commissioner allowed the evidence
q. Did you ever zee the prisoner in company
with man nance Noyes9 A. did net know his
name, bat recognized him In the OLE Bailey az the
man had seen frequently with Mcdonnell I went
the Old Bailey with an offcer for the purpose OF
iden tifying him; the prisoners walked reund, and
he was the only one KNEW; the police asked me
TO tell II knew him, and did photograph pro-
ducedl have seen the person OF whom this Is o
nh a a a of
business where was engaged. objected toy
Mr.. Da Costa offered to show that this person,
Frederick Warren, was q person wnOU witness
had seen in London with Mcdonnell.
witness-Ths person told me his name was Theo-
d0re Bingham; think he told me he had other
names, but do not remember them.
Crosse xamned--1 was arrested in London at
Eusten station by the of1cers Of the police, Ser
geants Green, Hayden and another; I started rom
London on Thursday week fer this city with Ser