THE BOUVY CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4288, 22 February 1901, Page 4

THE BOUVY CASE.

When M. Bouvy, now just returned to Wellington from Noumeia, was- before the Acting-Goveriior about a. year and a half ago, Ids case aroused public interest muck da the same way as has recently bcian done by the Lillywhite-Blatch case. There were several reasons for this, turning on the, points raised in Bouvy’s defence by an able and persistent counsel. The first affected the Supreme Court. The representative of the French authorities, who wanted M. Bouvy’s extradition, claimed to pass the Supreme Court of the country and take the case before the representative of the Crown, though the judicial branch of the Crown’s administration has long been delegated to ■the Courts.’ Was the British public to allow its highest institutions to be made football of by foreign treaties? It was even whispered that if the thing dpne in Wellington ware correct, the Sovereign might some day be forced to dis-

pense extradition justice in person at the capital erf Empire. But there was not time to pursue that point to its logical .conclusion', because another clamoured foi 1 attention. AL Bouvy exhibited', or rather the Wellington police exhibited for him, a paper of naturalisation. Ho was a British subject, amenable to our luvr. entitled to share our justice; was he to be dragged away over sea- to the accompaniment at clunking chains? The Acting-Governor had intimated, when deciding to mid M. Bouvy back, that fourteen days would be allowed in which lie might, if so minded, appeal under "habeas corpus. 1 ’ The point teas, however, not so important as it looked, for a British subject, or any other subject, whose extradition is applied for under a French law that he has broken, must, if cause be shown, bo extradited. He must bo tried by the laws he lias broken, not by tliOEe he has not. A more important point, c.o far as the object of the extradition demand was concerned, was the offence for which Al. Bouvy was wanted by the French police. And this, if the information at our disposal is correct, is even more important to the countries in the neighbourhood of New Calc-| donia. AVo understand that under the French law, a sentence of ten years or more of deportation to any particular place implies permanent residence in that place, la practice, when sentences have been served, permits are given for the convicts to live cut of the place of deportation, where they please in fact (except in Franco), for a limited period. As a matter of fact, it is alleged that the limited period is a mere euphemism, a species of “French leave ’; for how can the authorities compel holders of permits to report themselves at a stated time, at the place ol deportation? The attention ol the French authorities having been drawn to. the supposition that the holder ol an expired permit was in New Zealand, they lost, no time in sending ever a demand for extradition. But the question arises, nevertheless: Are Unite countries made a dumping ground, by the "French leave” system, for the more serious criminals of France alter their time of punishment has expired? If the information we have is correct, only one answer is possible to the question. The point which touches M. Bouvy far more nearly' is the. question ol identity; and that also: interests thei public a goud deal more Ilian the others, because the public is just now revolving in its lively and suspicious mind tho merits of tho Blalcli-Lillywhilc ease, in which the defence is based on an assertion of mistaken identity. Years ago, it appears', there was among the convicts at one of the penal* establisluncuits at Noumea a man named Bouvy, who in the course of time disappeared from view of his gaolers. M. Bouvy, the hero of the extradition case, appeared in. Wellington about two years ago, and became known to the public rather more than most strangers do, by reason of a little difference ho had with his employer, the Count do Ocurto, whom he served in the capacity of “chef” —which difference was not settled without tho intervention of tho Stipendiary Magistrate’s Court. In the mouth of November following, M. Bouvy was on board a steamer in Bluff harbour, taking ship for some other country, when lie was arrested mi suspicion of being tho Bouvy who had escaped from New Caledonia sonic time before. Probably some watchful eye in the oHicial part of New Caledonia noticed the roi port of the ease in Wellington, and was struck with the name, which, indeed, is not a common one. Either in this way, or some." othjer, the proceedings • arose which, reaching Al. Bouvy at the Bluff, brought him in due course (o 'Wellington. When here tho process for his extradition wOnt through the various phases we have indicated. Tho case turned upon the question of identity.' One of the military' warders, who came from New Caledonia, on purpose, swore that he recognised M. Bouvy as the os-* caped convict, and amongst other reasons for tho recognition detailed certain marks. M. Bouvy’s counsel insisted that his client was not the man wanted, but the Court of Extradition decided that the point must bo settled in Noumea, and tho Supreme Court refused to interfere. At Noumea the authorities promptly discovered that M. Bouvy was not the ex-convict who. was “wanted,’* and thay sot him free —we presume with many expressions of “desolation”—and the Governor made him his “chef.’’ Ho returned yesterday, no doubt with impaired respect for the Frdncli system of identification, hitherto supposed to be perfect enough to prevent such inconveniences as ho suffered. So far, the case is the latest addition to a long list which ought to make the world careful in its judgments by identification, and ready, when these judgments prove wrong, to pi ay —as the Chief Justice said the other day, referring to a possible error in the Blatch-Lillywhite ease—“substantial compensation.” Whether in the pjresent state of the law any compensation whatever can be recovered by the victims of mistaken identification and false accusation is, of course, an entirely different matter.