THR FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7214, 27 November 1888, Page 6

THR FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT.

THE RADCLIFFE CASE. At the Resident Magistrate's Court yeiterdav, before Messrs C. Whitefoord, R.M., and H. J. Hall, J.P., a case, v Slater, of some interest was heard. In September, 1837, a bankrupt. Wm. llndcliffe, left the colony for South Australia, aiid Mr Slater acting as counsel for the creditors, took steps under the Fugitive Offenders Act for his fXtraditiou. Before the Government would put the police in motion, however, they required a guarantee for the payment of all expanses connected with the proceedings. This was given by Mr Slater, who also handed £30 to Constable Stunner, who was despatched to Adelaide to bring Radcliflfe back. Before Stunner arrived the Adelaide authorities had arrested Radcliffe on the strength of a telegram received from the New Zealand police. On Radcliffe was found £60, which was impounded, and is still retained. The Magistrate before whom Radcliffe was brought mistook his power under the Act, and instead of remanding him in periods of seven days until a month should have expired, or the warrant from New Zealand arrived, remanded him for fourteen days. Radcliffe thereupon caused himself to be brought up on habeas corpus, andon the informality of the remand was d ischarged. The Magistrate then thinking to cure his mistake caused Radcliffe to be rearrested, and again a writ of habeas corpus was sued out, and the case was argued, when it was found that the Magistrate had exhausted his powers, and Radcliffe was set at liberty. In connection with this park of the proceedings the officials in defending their action incurred about £14 costs. Constable Stunner then arrested Radcliffe on the New Zealand warrant, and a third time he had recourse to habeas corpus, and the case was brought before the higher Court, when, the Judges deciding that there were no reasons weighty enough to warrant them in allowing RadcliftVs retention in custody,- he waa released on his own recognisances to appear in New Zealand within a year. This time Constable Stunner incurred costs of about £10. No claim was at that time made for any of the above-named costs, and Stunner returned to New Zealand. He accounted for his expenditure, and the balance of the £3Q advanoed was returned to Mr Slater. A considerable time afterwards the South Australian Government made a claim on the New Zealand Government for £24 4s od, the coats referred to. This was paid and Mr Slater was applied to for a refund. Long correspondence ensued without result, and finally, to settle the matter, the present action was brought. Mr Martin appeared for the Government, MrGresson for Mr Slater. The facts were admitted, and the question was, Was Mr Slater to be held liable for ! the costs so paid? Mr Gresson submitted j that the New-Zealand Government had no right to pay. Under the Act the duty and expense of arresting a fugitive fell on the authorities of the place to which he had gone, while the Government who had set the law in motion of course bore all the cost of deportation. That rule had been followed in all previous similar cases with other colonies as far as could 6e ascertained. Therefore if the Government had gratuitously paid money away Mr Slater should not be held respon-. sible. Again, the whole of tbe costs were made necessary ,hy the mistakes o.f the Adelaide Magistrate, and It would be in the last degree inequitable to compel Mr Slater to pay for those blunders. Mr Martin said there was no desire to press for anything which, after examination, would be considered inequitable. His Worship said h,e was, clearly of opinion that po. claim cquld be sustamed in regard qJ the eoMs. incurred, before Stunners, interference, As to th.qse iqsav-rea afterwards, he (Mr White foord) would read all the papers, which were bulky, and give judgment some future time