New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-07-13
EMO NOT TO BE EKTRADITED.
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PRISONER.

JUDGE cARON DECIDES rhAT FORGERY HAS NOT
BEEN PROVED.
QUEBEC, July 12.-Judgment was given in the
Emo case to-day denying the application for the
prisoners extradition. Judge Caron delivered the
Judgment in French and began by reciting the de-
tails of the arrest and the various warrants. lie
then proceeded to deal with the first claim of the
prosecution that the copies of theindctments alone
were sufficient The Indictment of a Grand Jury IN
a foreign country was not sufficient. These IN
dictments were simply appreciations by the Grand
Jury of New-York of the facts which had been
proved before them. without reference to the laws
of Canada. Because" he asked, the Grand Jury
of New-York were Of opinion ex parte that the
prisoner should submit to trial before a petit jury,
according to the laws of the United States are we
to conclude that this would justify his commi-
ment here The evidence must first be
submitted according TO the laws of Canada, and no
proof outside of those laws can be admitted. What
proof was made before the Grand Jury OF New
York; The Indictment did not inform u on thas
point. Were the Court to admit the indictment as
prima facie proof of the guilt of the prisoner the
right which our statute gives him Of proving he had
not committed a crime rendering him liable 10
extradition would be nusory. How could he IN
that Case for instance, prove that the witnesses
heard before the Grand jury in New-Iork were NOT
trustworthy How could he prove the contrary OF
the facts land before the Grand jury OF NewloIk II
a copy of the indictment were alone sufficient TO
commit HIM. Act 33 VIC. chapter 80, which
states that an Indictment found by Grand Jury is
sufficient for q commitment. refers only to the
Canadian and not to the foreign Grand Juries. In
the Brown case Judges Calf and Oser took this
view that a foreign indictment was not suf-
fcicut, either according 70 tho treaty
or to any act OF Parliament passed
since That ind o'mcnt was simply charge by "a
body of persons of whose constitution or power we
know nothing and of the evidence before whom we
are equally ignorant The tenth article of the Ash
burton treaty provides that the prisoner may b"
brought before Judge. who will hear and weigh
the evidence of his guilt If he were to take an i'm
dictment a. sufficient. how could he examine and
weigh the evidenced lie would fail in the very
frat of his dutios.'
The Judge then recited several author-
itioa on this point The prosecu-
ton ho said. had further brought forward
! witnesses to support their demand. They having
/ d,nr so If ,vi4 he luty of the count to hear aud
| cou.idrr tho evidence of thosc wituc7s"s. aud
| ahord their evidence not c9rrohoiato tne
| ho,nud question that the indictments must iall
| to thc ground Did tine facts proved by thrgo VII
nrsa't hov that tio crime of iorgoty under the ~
tradition At had h0eu committed ho asked
Ilttr ot tho iudrtmcutH we're for lotErfV 10 tho
| thitI degree. and the fourth VIVA forgery iu the
rrcuud doptrc. The uHt bad reference 10 the check
! tho crmc charged was due probably, 80 dorht
/ n the minds of thr Grand JuN na 10
/ whether that cnrck had not been aligned
/ nftei Lno ccnscd Go be- president The donht had,
| however been dl7prllcd here by the evidence of
/ Roberts who proved that the check could not pos
-hly have been signed after the resignation oi thc
! prisoner. The indictments, even II accepted dld
! not cover forgery understood hhu'I lhr
| treaty: for forgery IN the second OF mira
! degrees is not known IN tile Canadian laws
Neither i'm the English statutes nor IN ours II thtIc
! any definition of forgery. We had Therefore TO re-
! Ter 10 authorities and to cases decided 70 ma the
proper definition
I The Judge then proceeded to quote authority
on this subject the whole leading 10 the dehnIllou
| that forgery was the false making of an lnstru-
/ mem purpOriug to bee that which II Il
not or the making or altering OF writing so a. 20
/ make the writing or alteration purport To be the
/ act OF some other person. which II IS not Ihe
| checks signed bv Emo could not come under TINS
| definition for they were all, even the last aC-
| knowlcdged as perfectly valid by the bank
authorities themselves, with full cogni-
/ zance of all the facts. He had nothing To 90 with
| the conduct Of the prisoner except a II came
! within the bounds of the treaty and he therefore
| had no comment 10 make on H. All he could say
was that be found nothing IN IL 10 Justify the com
| initial of Enc under the cXtTadluOn treaty. IL,
therefore maintained the writ Of habeas corpus, ana
! ordr Emo 10 br set at liberty.
After the decision rendered the representa-
| tive of the United States here said to reporter
that he did not think they could enter on civil
/ CA