FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340  
341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   >>   >|  
[21] _Canadian Archives_, G. 84, p. 277. The letter to Sir George Arthur is _ibid._, G. 84, p. 275. The despatch from Lord Glenelg to Sir Francis Bond Head dated January 4, 1837, has endorsed on it a pencil memorandum "Jesse Happy has been liberated by Lieutenant Governor's command November 14, 1837," _ibid._, G. 83, p. 238. [22] Concluded at Washington, August 9, 1842. [23] It was held in the Province of Upper Canada that the Act of 1833 was superseded by the Ashburton Treaty in respect to the United States, but that it remained in force with respect to other countries (Reg. _v._ Tubber, 1854, 1, P.R. 98). Since the treaty our government has refused to extradite where the offence charged is not included in the treaty. In re Laverne Beebe (1863), 3 P.R. 273--a case of burglary. The provisions of the treaty were brought into full effect in Canada (Upper and Lower) by the Canadian Statute of 1849, 12, Vic. c. 19; C.S.C. (1859), c. 89. [24] The Chief Justice Sir John Beverley Robinson, Mr. Justice McLean (afterwards Chief Justice of Upper Canada) and Mr. Justice Burns. [25] The seat of the Superior Courts in Toronto, the Palais de Justice of the Province. [26] Mr. Samuel B. Freeman Q.C., of Hamilton, a man of much natural eloquence, considerable knowledge of law and more of human nature; he was always ready and willing to take up the cause of one unjustly accused and was singularly successful in his defences. I have heard it said that it was Mr. M.C. Cameron, Q.C., who so addressed the gathering but he does not seem to have been concerned in the case in the Queen's Bench. [27] The case is reported in (1860) 20 U. Can. Q.B., pp. 124-123. The warrant is given at pp. 192, 193. [28] The case is reported in (1861) 3 Ellis & Ellis Reports, Queen's Bench, p. 487; 30, Law Jour., Q.B., p. 129; 7 Jurist N.S., p. 122; 3 Law Times, N.S., p. 622; 9 Weekly Rep., p. 255. It was owing to this decision that the statute was passed at Westminster (1862) 25, 26, Vic. c. 20, which by sec. 1 forbids the courts in England to issue a writ of habeas corpus into any British possession which has a court with the power to issue such writ. The Court was Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Justices Crompton Hill and Blackburn, a very strong court. The Counsel for Anderson was the celebrated but ill-fated Edwin James. The writ was specially directed to the sheriff at Toronto, the sheriff at Brantford and the jail keeper at Brantford. Ju
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340  
341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Justice
 

Canada

 
treaty
 

reported

 

respect

 

Province

 
Brantford
 

Canadian

 
sheriff
 
Toronto

successful

 

warrant

 

defences

 

unjustly

 

addressed

 
singularly
 

gathering

 

concerned

 

accused

 

Cameron


Justices

 

Cockburn

 
Crompton
 

Blackburn

 
corpus
 

British

 
possession
 

strong

 

Counsel

 
directed

specially
 

keeper

 

Anderson

 

celebrated

 

habeas

 

England

 

Jurist

 

Reports

 

Weekly

 

Westminster


forbids

 

courts

 

passed

 
statute
 
nature
 

decision

 

Robinson

 

August

 

Washington

 
Concluded