MCARTHUR CASE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 120, 22 April 1936, Page 9

MCARTHUR CASE.

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

RETURN TO DOMINION.

SYDNEY, April 2X The High Court to-day unanimously dismissed one application of J oim \\ illuun Siiaw Aicnronur for special leave to appeal from tlie judgment of the State r ull Court ordering his extradition to New Zealand unuer the Fugitive Offenders Act. It was stated that an information had been laid in JNew Zealand charging McArthur with having published a prospectus false in certain material particulars. A warrant was issued for nis arrest, but it could not be executed in New Zealand because at this time McArthur was in New South .Wales. • . The Chief Justice (Sir John Latham), m bis judgment, said that the offence charged against McArthur was in respect or the period in which he was a director of the Investment Executive Trust of New Zealand, Ltd. The first ground upon which the application to the High Court was based was that the warrant issued by the New Zealand Magistrate was invalid because it did not satisfy the requirements of the New Zealand Justices of the Peace Act. “I am of opinion that the objection that the New Zealand warrant was invalid should not be sustained,” said the Chief Justice, who added that he was of opinion that the New South Wales Magistrate had authority- to endorse the warrant and had jurisdiction to order the return of McArthur to Now Zealand. Similar judgments were by Messrs Justice Starke, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan. 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 was set out that he had just cause to suspect the commission of the offence charged. The informant knew that after investigation of the circumstances by- a Royal Commission, tho Crown law authorities had advised the prosecution and his superior officer had instructed him to lay the information. But he had no personal knowledge of the facts nor of the evidence whereby they might be proved. Was it necessary that the informant himself should possess or appear to the Justice to possess direct knowledge of circumstances amounting to just cause for suspecting the offence, or should lie produce a witness who possessed or appeared to possess such knowledge? The Judges said this was a question of New Zealand law, but it was raised here because the Magistrate was required, before ordering the return of a fugitive, to he satisfied that the warrant was issued by a person having lawful authority. It might be doubted whether this meant more than that the Magistrate must be satisfied of the existence in the person issuing the warrant of authority to issue it. The Magistrate making an order acted judicially, and must be satisfied by the evidence. The validity of liis order, as distinguished from the legal propriety of his making it, could not, in the opinion of the High Court Judges, be affected by an erroneous determination of such a question. Mr Justice Bavin to-day in chambers granted bail of £SOO to McArthur until hfs departure for New Zealand on Friday. McArthur is to report daily and surrender himself to the New Zealand detective, Robinson, at noon on Friday prior to his departure in the Monowai. Meanwhile McArthur is permitted to attend to various business matters.