Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

M'ARTHUR'S TROUBLES

RESUMPTION OF HIGH COURT HEARING Press Association—By Telegraph —Copyright MELBOURNE, February 26. (Received February 27, at 1 a.m.) Further argument was hoard in the High Court on M'Arthnr’s application for special leave to appeal against the Now South Wales Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing his application for a writ of prohibition directed against the extradition order. Mr Monahan, for the Crown Solicitor of New South Wales, argued that, for the purposes of the Fugitive Offenders’ Act, all Australian States remained a British possession. “ The Commonwealth,” as used in the proclamation of the 1925 Order in Council, was merely a geographical expression to save napiing the States individually. The question of lack of jurisdiction, therefore, did not arise. The applicant had left New Zealand and had gone to live in New South Wqles, and could, therefore, be dealt with by any magistrate in the Commonwealth whose jurisdiction extended to Now South Wales. The court reserved judgment.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19360227.2.108

Bibliographic details

Evening Star, Issue 22274, 27 February 1936, Page 14

Word Count
156

M'ARTHUR'S TROUBLES Evening Star, Issue 22274, 27 February 1936, Page 14

M'ARTHUR'S TROUBLES Evening Star, Issue 22274, 27 February 1936, Page 14