The New York herald., 1876-07-06
Important Decision in the Austrian
Extradition Case.
MORE EXTRADlTION COMPLICATIONS
Raising Same Points Of Defence as in
The Case Of WinSlOw.
Another Decision for Jay Gould in the
Black Friday Suits

Leopold Netsel, whose extradton is demanded by
ihe Austrian government a charge OF forgery, WAS
brought up yesterday before United States Comnis-
roner Osborn The has been under examination
for several weeks past resulting the decision OF the
Commissioner remandng Nette to the custody OF the
Marshal to await the issuance OF a warrant or sur
render from the Executive Department ut Washington.
The prisoner has been ably defended by cxJ udge Joa
rhimsen, assisted by William y. Loew, the Austrian
government being represented by Mr. Edward Salo-
mon. Nettel a linen manufacturer at Trautenau,
Bohemia, in Austria In January last he arrived In
,hs city and assumed the name OF Igna,z Richter his
Ion, who was his travelling companion and who was
arrested with him, taking tho namo OF Frederick
Richter. Nettei, alias Richter, had been here but
short time when the Austrian Consul at this port rc-
ccycd a cablegram as iolows:-
Arrest Leopold Neitel Charge fraud. larceny. forgery
10000 Aois Haase others, extrAdite.
Nettcl was subsequently arrested warrant issued
by Commissioner Osborn on the complaint OF Hugo
Frtsch, the Austrian Consul, and his examination on
the documentary testimony forwarded from Vienna and
Prague has occupied several Tho testimony
being all in and argument OF counsel presented 10 the
Court ex-Judge Joachimsen moved to dismiss the
complaint the ground that there evidence of
the existence Of the Austrian law embracing and de-
hning the offence Of forgery and further, that ihero
evidence that the offence Of forgery recognized
by the treaty has been committed. .rgery has been
defined by the Austrian law OF 1856 when the treaty
made; that proof under the treaty with Austria
must be confined such proof as required by the
Of ls4S, IN force when that treaty made, and
neither party has right TO change the obligation OF the
treaty except by treaty that the treaty OF
meant such evidence as then required to be gwen
und subject OF Austria could be Affected by any sub
scquent legislation than the Austrian
could be affected, and that tho Revised Statutes
of the United States as we'll as the act of 1860. makes
the authorization of papers permissible to allow them
evidence but their effect evidence is greater
than would be exemplihed documents or depositions
under the act OF Congress- and the courts have the
right to determine what is legal testimony from the
dispositions themselves ON these points the Commis
soncr holds first to the proof of the existence of
the Austrian law defining forgery. the proposition
untenable because the language Of the treaty the
lime itwas concluded embraced the word forgery
among the other crimes enumerated herein which
Of Itself proves such crime to have existed the
statute books OF the respective countries recognized
such second, the language OF the treaty-to wit,
"The Evidence Of Crimiranty''- such evidence
the practice OF the courts of this country establishes
from time to time without the limitation mentioned in
the act OF 1sss except in so lar rs written or docu
mentary evidence shall bo considered; third, that
IN The case OF Joseph Suppf l2 Batchord pages sol
to 529 the Court held that the OF 1850 not az
Iected by the Revised Statutes OF the United States
and not embraced IN section 2sI, which revised
The of S4S only and therefore decides that the dep
pstions and papers authenticated as required by law
only be received in evidence, but are be
considered and made evidence extradition cases, al
Enough their value us evidence IN proceeding
American courts for offences committed here might bo
irS," me regal icstimdny noId iiS
that Congress has tho right to determine what shall
evidence in the OF the country provided such
dence does not conflict with the constitution, and
consequently The of 1850 making the dcposons and
the papers legally authenticated evidence IN this case
and the testimony the comparison OF hand
writing which argued not admissible in criminal
cases, by virtue OF such admiss bic evidence
this case As 10 the questions the merits of the
ease on the principle forth adudged In the case
OF Joseph Stuppi the commission is OF opinion that
there is sufficient evidence warrant the commit
of Leopold Ncttcl TOR extradition on the charge OF
forgery, embraced in tho complaint of the Austrian
Consul and hereby commits the said Nettc TO the
tody OF the Marshal tor the Southern District or New
Nnr 10 Ic Ia i'm hal In mi nfnfan nAoe
shall be issued from the Executive Department of the
go, ,crnmen shall be otherwise dealt with accord
ing TO Law.