The Washington times., 1918-07-29

cause to believe that Godson made
the representations set forth in the
complaint.
But even IL probable cause were
deducible from adequate evidence
there are other reasons which force
me to the conclusion that the petit
TONER should not be held for extra
dition upon the record before me-
As already stated. ths complaint IN
| this case does. not attempt to state
that the Republic of France parted
with its money in reliance upon the
representations Of Goldsoll, or that II
even had any knowledge or notice OF
them.
There is not only a variance be
| tween the allegations and the proofs
but the proofs squarely contradict
the allegations The record does not
leave it open to discussion that the
money obtained by GodsoIl was OBJ
tained from the Pierce-Arrow Com
pany and not from the Republic OF
Franco The record is equally clear
to my mind, that IL was the money
OF the Pierce-Arrow Company and
that France had no right, title or
claim thereto, or lien thereon.
Business Transitions.
The transactions between IN e
Pierce-Arrow Company and the pur-
chasing agencies of France were or
dinary business transactions. They
were dealing in the open market. at
arms length. The motors were man
ufactured in this county and when
the agreed purchase price was paid.
1t was paid in cash in this country
to the Pierce-Arrow Company. There
was no separation OF ii into portions
to be applied by the Pierce-Arrow
Company in any specified manner or
for any specified purpose. 1t became
and was the money of the Pierce-Ar-
row Company. absolutely. The French
Government parted with its title to
it, absolutely. 1t was impressed with
no trust, because the relations be-
tween the Republic OF France and the
Pierce-Arrow Company were in no
sense fduciary.
Suppose France has Instituted a
civil suit against either the Pierce
Arrow Company or Godsoll, to re-
cover the commissions received by
the latter: upon what theory could il
have been sustained? There was no
,privity between Godsol and France
and no false statements made by him
to France, so that neithe1 an action
OF assumpsit or deceit would lie
against him.
His duty, under the contract of
March IS, 1915, was to the Pierce
Arrow Company, and in a legal sense
was opposed to the French re-
public. And even IL he made a COM
mission contract which "burdened"
the price which France paid for the
trucks, he was entirely within his
rights and the only party which has
the right to complain, IL the commits
sion contract was unfairly obtained,
was his principal, who had agreed to
pay the commission; and the record
discloses no complaint as to this con-
tract on the part of the Pierce-Arrow
Company, during the three years in
which IL has been in force.
1t follows. therefore, that as the
acts charged to have been done by Pc
titioner would not have constituted
the crime of false pretenses in this
Jurisdiction where he is found, the
petitioner is not extraditable under
the treaty.
For the reasons above outlined. an
order will be entered discharging the
petitioner from custody.
The case which bids fair to be one
Of the most celebrated extradition
cases ever tried is also notable In It's
array OF legal talent
District Attorney Laskey has con-
Quoted the case for the prosecution.
assisted by Attorneys Laws. Archer
and Minor. The defense has been
in charge OF John B. Stanchfeld, OF
New York. and ex-senator Bailey, J.
J. Darlington and w J. Lambert