EXTRADITION LAW

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18263, 5 December 1933, Page 9

EXTRADITION LAW

1/AN IMPORTANT RULING FACTOR LOSES CASE (Received Dec. 5, 3 p.m.) WASHINGTON, Dec. 4. Tho United States Supreme Court today ruled that John Factor must go to London to face charges of fraud. The court held that the charges of “Receiving money knowing it to be fraudently obtained” furnished a sufficinet basis for Great Britain’s extradition proceedings against Factor. The ruling is accepted as an important interpretation of the extradition treaties between the United States and Great Britain. The court noted that a “narrow construction of the treaty is to be avoided,’’ adding that the good faith of the treaties demands that they be construed liberally. A vigorous dissent was read by Mr. Justice Butler, who said the majority opinion holds that the “United States is bound to surrender its citzens for punishment for an offence that is riot an offence here.” The ruling added: “It makes t rie United States turn over citizens for offences not mentioned in the treaty, while Great Britain is not bound to do W. . *

Mr. Justice Branders and Mr. Justice Roberts concurred in the dissent. • In fighting his extradition, Factor contended that he could not be removed because Illinois, where he was apprehended, had no crime exactly corresponding! to that charged by Britain.