Evening star., 1902-08-13
SET FREE BY CARON
Col. Gaynor and Capt. Greene
Released.
REVIEW OF THE CASE
THE WARRANTS WERE DEFEC-
TIVE AS TO DATES.
Conspiracy Charge Was Also Defec-
tive in the Matter of
Specifications.
REVIEW OF THE CASE

QUEBEC, August 13.-Judge Caron OF
the superior court today released Captain
Greene and Colonel Gaynor. the American
contractors, who are wanted in the United
States for alleged frauds against the fed
craI government involving hundreds of
thousands of dollars
Judge Caron based his decision in the
matter upon the absence of dates on the
warrants under which the prisoners were
first arrested in Quebec; discrepancies in
the charges on which true bills were OBJ
tanned against the prisoners in the United
States and discrepancies between those
charges and the charges made in the appli-
cation for extradition.
The prisoners were at once released and
received the congratulations of their
friends. and the court adjourned
Mr.. McMaster. counsel for the Uni ed
States government. was asked whether the
prosecution intended to take any further
action looking to the extradition of Col
GaynOr and Capt. Greene Mr.. McMastsr
replied that he was unable to speak posi-
lively on the subject until after confc"
enCe with Messrs. Erwin and Stewart,
which is proceeding this afternoon at th9
Chateau Frontenac.
The Announcement Made.
There was n large attendance of both
legal luminarIes and spectators. Mrs. Cay
nor, accompanied by number of ladies,
Judgment. Gaynor and Greene came irto
court with Sheriff Langelier.
Judge Caron ascended the bench at 1880
am. and began the reading of the very
lengthy notes preceding his Judgment. The
judge referred to the case as of great i'm
pOrtance. if only by reason of the unusual
proceedings employed and went on to say
that he would only review his last two
writs. He then read the petitions of the
prisoners for wrIts of habeas corpus upon
which the writ was issued. IN virtue of
which the prisoners were taken ont of the
hands of Jailer Valee of Montreal as well
as the answer thereto and the writ itself.
The events Immediately preceding the issue
Of writs he also reviewed. and went on to
concur in Judge Andrews opinion with ! .
gard to the sensational manner In which
the prisoners arrest was made here.
Refers to Personal Attacks.
With reference to the attacks made upon
himself. he was sure that the American
government authorities and their agents
could have had no hand in them The no.
tice of the American governments lawyers
10 Jailer Valee to attend to delivery of
Judge Andrews Judgment was then quoted
and Nalee's compliance therein noted. That
judgment !psO faCtO dispOssassed Judge
Andrews of the prisoners. and under the
circumstances he tJudge Caron) was quite
of habeas corpus addressed to Jailer Valee
after he had taken possession of the prison
ers. following Judge Andrews pronounce
meRt.
Judge CarOn next quoted authority for
his issue of writ of certiorari in his pre-
v!oUS Judgment, and showed that the writ
Of habeas corpus nevertheless remained in
force, even without the extradition COM
missioner having pronounced upon the case,
for the prisoner has always a right to ques-
ton the justice Of his being deprived of his
liberty American courts had taken a SINH
lar view in the case Of a foTger who was a
fugitive from Quebec province.
Bearing of Judge Andrews Decision.
The judge pressed the opinion that Judge
Andrews Judgment quashing his own writ
OF habeas corpus did not decide the merits
of the case, and notwithstanding the pre-
tensions of lawyers for the prosecution to
the contrary. his writ in no way conhicted
with Judge Andrews Judgment. for pris-
oner may always renew 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 war
rants of the dates at-which the Offense was
alleged to have been committed and the
other an objection of the validity of the
charge of conspiracy to defraud under the
extradition treaty. To make the warrant
valid the date of the offense. il committed,
must be inserted in it to prove the commits
si0ner's jurisdiction. Moreover, the exact
crime with which the prisoners are charged
and the proceedings to be taken against
them they have a right TO know.
In the Emo case the offense with which
the prisoner was charged in the extradition
proceedings and that made elsewhere 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 in the United
states. and between them and that made
In the application for extradition. This
as We'll as the absence of dates in the war
rant. he held to be distinctly fatal to the
latter and he. therefore, upheld the pris-
Oners' claims and their objections TO the
warrants. maintained the writ of habeas
corpus and ordered the release of the pris-