Mc ARTHUR APPEAL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 110, 22 April 1936, Page 8

M c ARTHUR APPEAL

Order for Extradition To N.Z. To Stand TO RETURN IN CUSTODY By Telegraph—Press Assn —Copyright. SYDNEY, April 21. The Federal High Court to-day unanimously dismissed an application by John William Shaw McArthur for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the State full Court ordering his extradition to New Zealand under the Fugitives’ Offenders Act. It was stated that the information had been laid in New Zealand charging McArthur with having published a prospectus that was false in certain material particulars. A warrant had been issued for Ins arrest, but it could not be executed m New Zealand because at this time AbArthur was in New South Wales. The Chief Justice in his judgment said that the offence charged against McArthur was in respect of Uic period in which he was a director in the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand, Ltd. The first ground upon which the application to the Federal High Court was based was that the warrant issued by a New Zealand magistrate was invalid because it did not satisfy the requirements of the New Zealand Justices of the Peace Act. “I am of the opinion that the objection that the New Zealand warrant was invalid should not be sustained,” said the Chief Justice, who added the opinion that a New South Wales magistrate had the authority to endorse the warrant, and had jurisdiction to order the return of AlcArthur to New Zealand. Similar judgments were given by Justices Starke, Dixon, Evatt and MeTierman. The three last-named judges, in a joint judgment said that the information against McArthur was laid on oath, by a police officer, and it set out that he had just cause tv suspect the commission of the offence with, which McArthur was charged. The informant knew that alter an investigation of the circumstances by a Royal Commission, the Crown Law authorities had advised the prosecution and his superior officer had instructed him to lay the information. He had not a personal knowledge of the facts, nor of the evidence whsreby they might be proved. Was it necessary that the informant himself should possess or appear to the justice to possess direct knowledge ol the circumstances amounting to just cause for suspecting the offence, oi should he produce a witness who poasessed or appeared to possess such knowledge? The judges said that this was <i question of New Zealand law, but it was raised here because the magistrate was required before ordering the return of a fugitive to be satisfied that the war rant was issued by a person having law ful authority. It might be doubted whether this meant more than that the magistrate must be satisfied ol the existence in the person issuing the warrant of authority to issue it. The magistrate, in making an order acted judicially and must bo satisfied by the evidence. The validity of his order, us dis tinguished from the legal propriety ol liis making it, could not in the opinion of llie High Court judges be affected b,\ an erroneous determination of such a question. Mr Justice Bavin today, in Chambers, granted bail of £5OO to McArthur

till his departure for New Zealand on Friday. McArthur is Io report daily and ’ur render himself to Detective llobinson. of New Zealand, nt noon on Friday before the departure of the Monowai. Meanwhile, McArthur will be permitted to attend to his various business matters.