THE RADCLIFFE CASE.

Press, Volume XLIV, Issue 6877, 8 October 1887, Page 5

THE RADCLIFFE CASE.

—• r c STORY OK THE TELEGRAM. i c THE PRISONER'S STATEMENT. l a c As will have been seen both by the re- s port of the judgment delivered in Adelaide t in connection with the case of the Rev. H W. Radcliffe and a telegram relative to an a action, there seems to exist an idea, in Adelaide that, the: New Zealand police t sent" false and misleading telegrams as to a the warrant of arrest. Mr Inspector q Pender, however, puts the case in a differ- t ent light, and shows that the mistake has fc been made by the South Australian autho- s rities themselves. On the 3rd September o a wan-ant was issued for contravention of a the Bankruptcy Act against the Rev. W. t Radcliffe. Mr Inspector Pender tele- n graphed to the Commissioner of Police at c Wellington a full description of the ac- <j cused and of the offence, stating that the c warrant bad been issued: now for the 0 explanation. The telegram communica- t ting with the Australian authorities was r sent from the Commissioner of Police at * Wellington under date of September 3rd, a and mentioned that the warrant for the s arrest of the accused had been issued, t Subsequently it was decided to send Con- r stable Stunner to Adelaide to bring the t accused back to New Zealand. The c Crown Prosecutor thinking it neces- f sary to give a fuller description of v the offence than was given in the i original warrant issued on September 3rd, r had another warrant dated September 6th j issued, and, furnished with this and the ] depositions, Constable Stunner was g despatched to Adelaide. On arrival, of r course, there was tbe discrepancy of the J dates of the warrants. According to the r telegram on which the South Australian f police acted, the warrant had been issued j on the 3rd September, the date of the tele- j gram. But on the arrival of the New Zealand constable, the warrant he had with t him and the depositions bore date the 6th ( September, or three days after the date of \ tbe telegram, which stated tbat a warrant . had been issued. This is the explanation , of the matter which has led to the some- , what harsh terms which have been applied \ to the New Zealand police, such , leading and false telegrams," &c. , When before tbe Police Magistrate in , Adelaide the Rev. W. Radcliffe conducted j his own case, and made a long statement. \ He disclaimed the imputation which he s said was made against him in the Segister, ■ that his object was to trip up Mr Bed- j dome. He did not think that a man in his \ position, who was locked up in gaol from j six to six with criminals of the worst , class, and exposed to many other in dig- , nities, was to be blamed for availing him- j self of a technicality in the law to obtain ( his temporary release. He contended that , under the provisions of clause 19 of the, , Fugitive Offenders Act tbe Magistrate was' , justified in considering whether bis return . to New Zealand was not sought for upon a \ trivial case and not in the interests of jus- < tice. The very essence of extradition was , that the prisoner should be returned to the , country where he committed the offence ■ for the purpose of being tried and punished and not for any petty purpose. He cited ] the case of a man who, on an extradition < warrant, was taken from Australia to ; Great Britain for wife desertion, and , only received twenty-four hours' imprisonment when he got there. He,, therefore, asked for bis immediate release. He protested against a statement made in the Court on a previous hearing. |An affidavit was sworn that he bad been adjudicated a bankrupt in New Zealand. He was arrested in Adelaide on a provisional warrant on September 4th, which should have necessi--1 tated his having been declared insolvent previously. But he was not adjudicated insolvent until September 6th. Therefore a wilfully false telegram had been sent to Adelaide for his arrest. Further the offence with which he was charged was with leaving New Zealand with intent to defraud. But he did so quite openly with the knowledge of his Bishop, of the Steward of the Club with which he was connected, and of several friends in New Zealand. He left New Zealand on August 22nd, and no notice was taken of it, and no notice of insolvency was served upon him. He did not leave Melbourne until he received a telegram informing him that his mother in England was very iIL All the circumstances pointed to the improbability of any intent to defraud his creditors. When be left New Zealand he left considerable property and £45 10s for the purpose of liquidating bis debts. When arrested in Adelaide he had*a letter already written with which he intended to forward a draft of £50 to his solicitors to further pay his debts, and also asking tbem to advertise in the newspapers inviting all tradesmen to apply for the money owing to them. During the last few hours he was in Christehurch he paid several of his creditors and saw his principal creditor, but ultimately left the matter in the hands of his solicitors, as there was. a question of discount involved. If he wanted to evade his creditors he might have taken passage in a Union steamer which sailed on the same afternoon that he left, and have gone to Rio, where an extradition warrant could only with difficulty be put in force. But instead of that he went by way of Dunedin and the Bluff to Melbourne, where he stayed. It was improbable that in his position as chaplain to the Dean of Christchnrch, chaplain to the Volunteers, and as a Freemason he would go to England and render himself liable to extradition when be arrived there. He called Detective Thorn, of the Adelaide force, who stated that he found the letter mentioned by Radcliffe. The latter was also sworn, but nothing new was elicited. j The magistrate, as already reported, re-' manded Radcliffe to New Zealand. The ; prisoner gave notice of appeal, and the I result of the subsequent proceedings has ' been reported.