Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1896-09-24
THE SEARCH WARRANT.
One Of Lord RuSseITs latest Decisions
Related Thereto.

Related TheretO.
Just before leaving london on
his way to this country, Lord
Russell, sitting as trial Judge
in the Queens Bench division of
the High Court of Justice.
rendered an interesting decision
relating to the validity of search
warrants, in case which was
tried before him without jury in
June, and then taken under
advisement.
The suit was against
magistrate to recover damages for
having issued Search worr"nt
without authority OF law. The
person whose effects were search
ed under this warrant was a but
Ter, and the warrant had been
obtained against him by his
master, who accused the man of
theft at the time he was about to
leave his masters employment.
Nothing was found that could be
proved to have been stolen, and
the butler was acquitted of the
charge of larceny. He then sued
the Justice of the peace who
issued the search warrant, alleg
ing that the instrument was
fatally defective because there
was no averment or proof before
the magistrate that anything had
been stolen, and because neither
the warrant nor the complaint
upon which it was granted
specified the goods to be searched
for.
In his judgment, delivered on
the 9Th Of August, the Lord Chief
Justice overruled both these
objections, and decided that the
search warrants were valid and
afforded ample protection to the
defendant. ....
1t is not necessary under the
existing English law, according
to Lord Russell, to allege the
actual commits sion Of a felony in
order to give the magistrate power
to issue a search warrant. 1t is
enough if the written information
which constitutes the complaint
in this class of cases, sets out
reasonable grounds for the belief
that the goods arc being felonious.
ly dealt with by the defendant.
As to the failure of the warrant
i'll this particular preceding to
indicate just what property was
to be searched for, the Lord
Chief Justice says: Il cannot find
it anywhere laid down that a
search warrant must specify the
goods, and; indeed, it is easy to
suggest many cases where 1t
might be impossible for the
person laying the information to
do so. Probably in most cases
there is no difficulty, and for that
reason the usual forms for the
information and the warrant
are drawn up in that way"
As to this second point, the
general rule in the states Of the
American Union is quite different.
The thing for which the search is
to be made must be specified or
described as nearly as can con-
veuiently be done. There are
constitutional provisions to this
effect in some of the states; and in
New York the code of criminal
procedure expressly provides that
a search warrant can only be
issued "upon probable cause, sup
ported by affidavit, naming and
describing the person, and parti-
cularly describing the property
and the place to be searched"
The form prescribed for the
search warrant. in the same code,
requires the property for which
the officer is to search to be des-
cribed therein "with reasonable
partioularity."
Under our law, the search war
rant upheld by Lord Russell
could hardly have been deemed
valid.-New York Sun.