The daily gazette., 1883-02-08
wonKtNo ron rH1rrs.
.sor,he Olsohargs Of the Thievine
ASkinb Aaaa0r.

ecrthe discharge Of tho Thievine
AsA'"S Major.
ro.oxro. ONT, Feb. 1.-THE extradition
Major Phipps, the absconding super
cay euaont a. Of the Philadelphia Almshouse,
lnsI llo heFore the Court OF Appeals this morn
Nas Chief Justice Spragge and Justices
my, nton Patterson and Ferguson being
0omt pu.v The prisoner was not In Court.
p[S'S.cItl ta SWccartly for the prisoner reviewed the
hl md moved for the prisoners discharge.
Tse gSoo three charges upon which Major Phipps
.uas ~ Scld were precisely similar Ia nature,
va va for the purpose Of argument, one was
M a., tbst was necessary to instance.
~ Ga,'nsel .nu contended that the indictment
-, which the warrant OF extradition was
,lPpUad uPUd hv Pniladelphia authorities was pro
l0,a nnssd hy dispositions taken informally and
~ an illegal manner, having been sworn to
tis,ro y ~ CLERK of the Court Of Common
p,nos ps,o and not In open court. The deposit
,ions therefore, he claimed, amounted
,,orelv 10 an information which was sufii-
alont nio fnr the Judge to apprehend the
orisorer. ,,g,, The technical distinction between
sfsnosllion and affidavit was such that war
~, cor extradition could not be issued
ma nnder the latter, and what were claimed TO
~ un donoaltions within the meaning of the
law n this case were simply afidavits. He
'ubmitted that before extradition was per-
,aiItcd for forgery the law required that
.bsre should be sufficient evidence to con-
eict the prisoner of some offence. In this
nrovince the question was whether the act
was one Of forgery or not.
Nisdemeanor was not denied, but the
essential ingredient Of forgery was that a
writing should be represented as that of
smother party than the one who had really
written It. When the prisoner wrote Leeds
and Ferguson" Major Phipps' counsel de-
clared. the Secretary was not deceived as TO
who had written the name, because he saw
Il written. The Secretary was deceived by
tbe man, not by the paper or writing, This
was not forgery, either there or In Pennsyl-
yania, District Attorney Graham stated in
tbe evidence that the oct was forgery, both
by the common law and by the penal code
Of Pennsylvania, but this was at variance
with prisoners further evidence.
Mr. Oster, Queens counsel, also for the
pri,oner, followed In the same line of argu-
ment. The prisoners wrong, he submitted,
was complete the moment the signature
was made, and the document which that act
nut before the public 'was genuine. The
nrlsoners wrong would have been as great
il be had got the warrant singly on the
statement that he had the authority to get
it without signing a receipt. As TO District
Attorney Graham's evidence regarding the
forgery the lower court had ruled against
the defense by giving the evidence of expert
testimony to show that Graham's evidence
was not correct They had thus been de-
priyed of evidence which the law clearly
allowed, and their Lordshlps should say
that the evidence was improperly refused,
and on that ground the prisoner was enti-
tied to dismissal.
Mr. Martin, for the prosecution, com
menced his argument, when the court ad-
jOuFned TIL IL o'clock tomorrow morning.