The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-08-19

the Judgment rendered, came as a sur
prise to the counsel.
They say that there were but two mo-
tions pending before the iudge.
/. The motion of the United States 70
quash the writ Of habeas corpus and to
remand the prisoners to the custody of
the Tailor of Montreal.
4 ne motion of the prisoners counsa
10 nave the extradition hearing p~c-tUd
Oh us merits before Justice CarCa.
Inc nrst OF the motions alone was
argued with the understanding that
counsel was to have the opportunity CT
pelhS heafd On any other question Wnel
that was determined. The point made in
the opinion that the warrane Of arrest or
remand did not set out the date When
the offense was committed, they saw,
was lmmaterial. The Judge Lad before
MIN the complaint, which charges speci-
neatly the date Of the offence. The war
rant and remand Were>on the exact 'Orm
prescribed for use in the criminal code
ana were held sufficient by Justice An
dreWs. h point made in the opinion
that the warrant does not set out that
the acts charged constitute a crime under
the laws of both countries, they say. is
without force, as it is specifically set
out in the complaint that the acts
charged were contrary to the laws of
the United States and, as held repeated
ly in the Canadian decisions. the courts
here will take judicial notice that the
acts charged constitute a breach of the
Canadian constitution, if committed in
Canada.
The point made in the opiaioa that the
complaint charges only conspiracy, the
say, overlooks the most important al
legations contained in it.
After setting out the acts of embezzle-
ment that the prisoners not only con-
spired with Carter to commit the crimes,
but aided and abetted him in their com
mission and divided with him the money
thus fraudulently obtained, it was
claimed that both at common law and
under the Canadian statutes, one who
procures or aids or abets the commission
of a crime, participates in the crime.
The treaty provides that there shall be
eXtradition for participation in embezzle-
ment Or participation in fraud committed
by an agent, and it is difficult to under
stand how a palmer case of participation
could be set out than that charged in
the complaint.
The point made in the judgment that
AAANAA w. iAtNN ioS iNt> VI q
judgment on the motion to quash the
writ of habeas corpus pending before
him, and that therefore his opinion did
not make a case of Res Judicata will be
disproVed, they say, by inspection of the
record, which shows Judge Andrews
judgment endorsed on the papers.
The defendants counsel themselves
conceded that the case made by the COM
plant before Judge Lafontaine, was suffi-
Gent on it's face and within the face of
the treaty, shown, they claim, by the
fact they did not move to have the
prisoners discharged on the writ of
habeas corpus before Judge Caron, but
moved to have a day fixed for hearing
before him on the merits of the extra
dition case in his capacity as extradition
commissioner
There was no point made in
the decision of Justice Caron
which was not also before Justice An
dreWs, United States Counsel, say it can
only be regarded as an unfortunate state
Of affairs when two judges in the same
court, and passing on the same case
cannot agree, and when crime goes I'M
punished.
Counsel for the United States will take
time to consider their future course of
action.