The Minneapolis journal., 1902-08-13

accompanied by a number of ladies, was
present during the delivery of the judg-
ment.
Judge Caron referred to the case as of
great Importance, if only by reason OF
the unusual proceedings employed. He
then read the petitions of the prisoners
for, writs of habeas corpus upon which the
writ was issued, by virtue of which the
prisoners were taken out of tho hands of
Jailer 'Valee Of Montreal, as we'll as the
answer thereto and the writ itself. The
events Immediately preceding the issue
of 'writs he also reviewed, and he con-
CURED in Judge Andrews opinion with re-
gard to the sensational manner in which
the arrest was made here. ~.,.
With regard to the attacks made upon
himself he was sure that the American
authorities and their agents could have
had. no ohand in them. The notice to the
American governments lawyers to Jailer
Valee to attend to the delivery of Judge
Andrews judgment was then quoted and
Valee's compliance therein noted. That
| judgment ipso facto dispossessed Judge
| Andrews of the prisoners and under the
circumstances he (Judge Caron j was
/ quite justified in his subsequent issue of
writs of habeas corpus addressed to Jailer
Valee after he had taken possession OF
the prisoners following Judge Andrews
pronouncement. = - .
|
his issue of a writ of certiorari in his
previous Judgment and showed that the
writ of habeas corpus nevertheless re-
manned in force, even without the extra
dition commissioner having pronounced
upon the case, for the prisoner has al
ways a right to question the justice of his
| being deprived of his liberty. American
courts had taken a similar view in the
! case of a forger who was a fugitive from
Quebec province. '#li =. E...- ~
j Y His honor pressed the opinion that
Judge Andrews judgment quashing his
/ own writ of habeas corpus did not decide
the merits of the case and notwithstand-
ing the pretensions of the lawyers fol
the prosecution to the contrary, his writ
in NO way conflicted with Judge Andrews
/ judgment, for prisoner may always re.
new his application providing that some
new facts are stated, as had been done
| in the present case. One of these referred
to the absence in the warrants of the
dates at which the offense was alleged tc
have been committed, and the other was
an objection of the validity Of the charge
of conspiracy to defraud under the extra
/: dition treaty. To make the warrant vali6
the date of the offense, If committed
must be inserted in it, to prove the com
missioner's jurisdiction. - Moreover, the
exact crime with which the prisoners are
charged and the proceedings to be taken
against them they have right to know
In the Emo case the offense with which
the prisoner was charged in the extradi-
tion proceedings and that made else
where did not agree. In the present case
there was a distinct discrepancy between
/ the charges upon which the various true
| bills against the prisoners were obtained
i in the United States and between then
and that made in the application for ex-
! tradition. This, as we'll as the absence
Of dates in the warrant he held to be dis.
i tinctly fatal to the latter, and he there
4 fore upheld the prisoners claims and
1 their objections to the warrants main
ltained the writ of habeas corpus and or
8dered the release Of the prisoners.