The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-08-09
Criminal Law in Austrnlasia.

In July, 1872, at Darling Point, In the Aus
tralian colony Of New South Wales, JOHN
MACLEOD married MARY MANSON. In May.
1889, while his first wife was said to be still
living and tho first marriage still in force.
MACLEOD married MARY ELIZABETH CAME
RON In the city OF st. Louis, in tho State OF
Missouri. He subsequently went to the
town Of Napier. In New Zealand, and there.
In March. 1890, he was arrested upon reQui-
sition from the Governor Of Now South
Wales. issued on papers which charged him
with having committed the crime Of bigamy
In that colony.
As soon as no was taken into custody
under the warrant OF cxtradition. MACLEOD
applied to tho Chief Justice Of New Zealand
for writ Of hsbeas corpus. and tho Chief
Justice ordered his discharge on the ground
that II tho prisoner was guilty of bigsmy at
ALL the crime must have been committed In
the United States and tho colonial courts OF
Now South Wales had no jurisdiction over
the offence. Tho authorities Of New South
Wales. however, persisted In their attomptto
carry MACLEOD back to Australia. They pro-
cured his arrest on another charge OF a crinlo
which they alleged no had committed in
Now South Wales, and took him back to that
colony. When thoy got him there, lowov-
or, they abandoned this second charge and
put him upon trlal for the blSamy resulting
from his Missouri marriage Ho was con-
yicted and sentenced to three years' impris-
onment at hard labor; and the Supreme
Court Of New South Wales affirmed tho
conviction, although one Of its members
dissented from the conclusion reached by
the other Judges.
Tho case did not end here. however. It
was taken to London under a special leave
to appeal granted by the Supreme Court OF
New South Wales. and has just been argued
and decided In the judicial Committee Of the
Prlvy Council, which has jurisdiction to
hear and determine most colonial appeals.
The judgment was rendered by the Lord
Chancellor and was In favor OK the appellant.
The face OF the record as it came before the
Judicial Committee showed that the offence
was charged to have been committed In the
State Of Missouri; and hence Lord Halls
BURY declared 1t was manifest that the crims
OF the prisoner. II committed at all, was
committed in o country over which the
courts of New South Wales had no jurlsdic-
ton. 1t followed that the defendant had
been tried by the colonial court without any
power or authority In tho premises, and 1t
was the duty OF tho judicial Committee to
advise the Queen to set aside the conviction
and impose the costs upon the Attorney
General for New South Wales.
This case possesses several interesting
features. 1t is a general maxim Of the Grim
inal law that the courts OF country have
no jurisdiction to try persons for crimes
committed within the territory of other civ
ilized nations. The Chief Justice OF New Zea-
land took correct view Of the law In this
respect. The Judges Of the higher colonial
courts OF Great Britain are able lawyers as
. rule. and 1t is somewhat surprising that
the conviction in this MACLEOD case
should have found any one to uphold it
in the Supreme Court OF New South Wales.
The case IL also interesting as showing the
worldwide extent of tho matters which
come before the appellate tribunals of Great
Britain. and tho trouble which an English
colonist may have to take In order to main
tain his legal rights. The appeal In this
proceeding and the result once more aptl;.
illustrate the truth OF the old saying that
British justice comes high. but it's prime"