FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   377   378   379   380   381   382   383   384   385  
386   387   388   389   390   391   392   393   394   395   396   397   398   399   400   401   402   403   404   405   406   407   408   409   410   >>   >|  
be found in all the collections of treaties of Great Britain or the United States, and in most of the treaties on extradition, amongst them the useful work by John G. Hawley, Chicago, 1893 (see pp. 119 sqq.). [34] It was held in this province that the Act of 1883 was superseded by the Ashburton Treaty in respect to the United States, but that it remained in force with respect to other countries (Reg. _v._ Tubber, 1854, 1, P. R., 98). Since the treaty, our government has refused to extradite where the offense charged is not included in the treaty. In re Laverne Beebe (1863), 3, P. R., 273--a case of burglary. The provisions of the treaty were brought into full effect in Canada (Upper and Lower) by the Canadian Statute of 1849, 12, Vic., c. 19, C. S. C. (1859), c. 89. [35] Chief Justice Sir John Beverley Robinson, Mr. Justice McLean (afterwards Chief Justice of Upper Canada) and Mr. Justice Burns. [36] The seat of the Superior Courts in Toronto, the Palais de Justice of the Province. [37] Mr. Samuel B. Freeman, Q.C., of Hamilton, a man of much natural eloquence, considerable knowledge of law and more of human nature; he was always ready and willing to take up the cause of one unjustly accused and was singularly successful in his defences. I have heard it said that it was Mr. M. C. Cameron, Q.C., who so addressed the gathering, but he does not seem to have been concerned in the case in the Queen's Bench. [38] The case is reported in (1860), 20 Up. Can., Q. B., pp. 124-193. The warrant is given at pp. 192, 193. [39] The case is reported in (1861), 3, Ellis & Ellis Reports, Queen's Bench, p. 487; 30, _Law Jour._, Q. B., p. 129; 7, _Jurist_, N. S., p. 122; 3, _Law Times_, N. S., p. 622; 9, _Weekly Rep._, p. 255. It was owing to this decision that the statute was passed at Westminster (1862) 25, 26, Vic., c. 20, which by sec. 1 forbids the courts in England to issue a writ of habeas corpus into any British possession which has a court with the power to issue such writ. The court was Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and Justices Crompton, Hill and Blackburn, a very strong court. The Counsel for Anderson was the celebrated but ill-fated Edwin James. The writ was specially directed to the sheriff at Toronto, the sheriff at Brantford and the jail-keeper at Brantford. Judgment was given January 15, 1861. [40] Common law, of course, not chancery. [41] The court was composed of Chief Justice William Henry Draper,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   377   378   379   380   381   382   383   384   385  
386   387   388   389   390   391   392   393   394   395   396   397   398   399   400   401   402   403   404   405   406   407   408   409   410   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Justice
 

treaty

 

Toronto

 

Canada

 

reported

 

United

 

respect

 
treaties
 

Brantford

 
sheriff

States

 

Common

 

warrant

 

Reports

 

Judgment

 
keeper
 

January

 
addressed
 

gathering

 

Cameron


Draper

 
chancery
 

directed

 

composed

 

concerned

 

William

 

Jurist

 
forbids
 

Blackburn

 

courts


defences
 

strong

 
England
 

Justices

 

Cockburn

 

possession

 

British

 

habeas

 

Crompton

 

corpus


Westminster

 

Counsel

 

specially

 
Weekly
 
statute
 

Anderson

 
passed
 

decision

 

celebrated

 

Hamilton