THE RADCLIFFE CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6037, 20 September 1887, Page 3

THE RADCLIFFE CASE.

Inspector Pender has received no communication from Adelaide in reference to the case of the Rev W. Radcliffe, who, it was stated, had been discharged from custody by an order of Mr Justice Boucant. There seems to be some probability that Mr Eadcliffe is again in custody. The proceedings which were quashed by Mr Justice Boucant had, presumably, been taken under the Fugitive Offenders Act. According to this Act, the Adelaide police, on receipt of a telegram from New Zealand, would lay an information against Mr Eadcliffe, obtain a provisional warrant for his^ arrest, and bring him before the Police Magistrate, who has power to remand him for seven days, pending the receipt of the regular warrant from' New Zealand. The Magistrate, Mr Beddome, remanded the accused for 14 days, which he had no power to do. On the mistake being discovered, a second warrant was issued under the first information, and the accused remanded for the legal period of seven days. All these proceedings have been upset by the Supreme Court decision. It appears, however, that the Adelaide police, by simply laying a fresh information, could re-arrest Mr Eadcliffe and bring him again before the Magistrate with another application for a remand. This, probably, has been done, or, at all events, should have been done. It is probable that Constable Stunner, who left here on Sept. 7 with the necessary documents to bring Mr Eadcliffe back, would arrive in Adelaide very nearly about the time when the Supreme Court decision was given.

Justice Boucant, sitting at Adelaide, decided that, as Mr Beddome, P.M., had exceeded his powers in ordering theprisoner to be remanded for fourteen days, the second warrant under which he had remanded him for six days .on the 6ame information waß valueless. The prisoner was therefore finally discharged. William Beach and Peter Kemp lately visited the Nepean to make arrangements in connection with the forthcoming race with Hanlan. Beach, \who expresses himself highly satisfied with the course, will take up his quarters on the river early in October. He is in splendid health and full of confidence. promises to, be a .sensational divorce case presenting unusual features, was lately opened in the Sydney Divorce Court. Thomas Alfred Dora sues for a divorce from his wife, Harriet Dorn, on the grounds of her adultery with Albert Nicholson, a solicitor. The parties were married in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 1880. They afterwards came to Sydney, where the petitioner became a hotelkeeper. A little over two years ago hia wife instituted proceedings for a judicial separation from her husband. Her petition was granted, and her husband was committed to prison for refusing to pay the costs 01 the proceedings. He remained in gaol for two years, and was released four weeks ago. He alleges that before and after he was a prisoner the co-respondent was improperly intimate with Mrs Dora, for whom he was acting professionally. He claims .£IOOO damages.