THE EXTRADITION PRISONERS

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 156, 3 July 1888, Page 8

THE EXTRADITION PRISONERS

Remi Philibert Lanfray Cury and Francis Capitane Gasparini were again brought before Dr. Giles, Extradition Commissioner, at the Police Court this morning to answer to the charge of the larceny o the yacht Martinette at New Caledonia.

Mr Hudson Williamson appeared for the prosecution and Mr W. J. Napier for the prisoner Cury. Mr Williamson said that while the previous charge would not be abandoned, the prisoners would on this occasion be brought up on the charge of having been previously convicted in the dominions of the French Government oi crimes for which they were liable to be handed over under the Extradition Treaty. The French Vice-Consul at Wellington had signified that such was the case with regard to the prisoners. With regard to the other case he might state that an officer had left Neumea with the necessary evidence, and it was hoped he would be here before eight days.

Mr Napier said that this was a queer procedure. The men had been arrested on the 27th of April, eight weeks ago, and yet noevidencehad been produced against them. He asked that under the circumstances the first charge should be dismissed, and then they could deal with the other charge. He pointed out that the requisition had only been made by the Vice-Consul at Wellington, and not by the Governor of a French dependency. Mr Williamson said that the warrant was signed by the Governor of New Caledonia. He said that the Vice-Consul in Wellington had been badly advised by the Consul at Sydney, no doubt because the process in New South Wales was much more simple than in New Zealand. For that reason he had not taken the steps.which otherwise he would have done in producing the necessary documentary evidence and witnesses. If Mr Napier chose'he could apply to the Supreme Court for a writ ot Habeas Corpus. That would settle the matter definitely. He had been provided with a copy of the criminal record of the prisoners, and found that there was a large catalogue of crimes against them. He thought it would be a great pity if such men were let loose upon society merely because of a technical flaw. It was purely an accidental circumstance that they were not at presentable to put before the bench the requisite evidence.

Mr Napier said that, seeing that much false information had been given by the French Consul at Sydney, he must express his doubt as to such documents, rabhercopies of documents,which were forwarded by him. A writ of ffabeas Corpus would mean considerable expense to his client, who had not come here burdened with much worldly goods. For nine weeks no evidence had been produced, although there had been three trips to New Caledonia in that time. Ib was absurd to think that the Consul of Sydney should be so ignorant of an Imperial Act which governed alike all colonies. He urged that the charge of larceny should be dismissed, as apparently no evidence would be forthcoming. His Worship said with reference to the charge of larceny, he should have no hesitation in dismissing ib were it not for the fact thatan officer would probably behere ma few days. He would remand them once more, bub he wished it to be distinctly understood that ho did so with great reluctance, and also that he was not sure he would be prepared to granb any further remands. He certainty thought that, if after all this time the French Government wore not prepared to go on, it could not be expected that the men could be kept in prison as ib was quite contrary to the spirit of English law. But in the present instance, as an officer might soon be here, he would grant the remand for eight days, bub he was nob prepared to give any hope thab he would grant any further remands. Mr Napier thanked His Worship, and remarked that the French authorities thought that our prison was a Bastille to which men might be permanently committed by letters de cachet.

Mr Williamson said that probably the French authorities bhoughb bhab men who were bad enough to be sentenced to forty years' penal servitude were better in gaol. Mr Napier said that if such was the case with Gasparini, it was not so with his client, Cury. The prisoners were then removed from the dock.