REG. v. The cloth had been entrusted to Butler by one Spencer Weeks, her employer, to make up into garments. Instead of doing so THE JUDGES she had appropriated it to her own use and pledged it with AND JUSTICES Walker. For this larceny she was tried and convicted upon her own confession before the Recorder of London at the Central Criminal Court, and sentenced. After the conviction an application was made by the counsel for the prosecution for restitution of the cloth by Walker under the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 100. The Recorder refused the application. (a) The Solicitor-General (Sir F. Herschell) and R. S. Wright showed cause against the rule. The Central Criminal Court is a Superior Court, and this court has no power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel that court to do what it has not thought fit to do. The Central Criminal Court was established by the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 36. Sect. 1 of that Act enacts that the Lord Mayor of the City of London, the Lord Chancellor, and all the judges for the time being of His Majesty's courts of K. B., C. P. and Ex., the Chief Judge and two other Judges in bankruptcy, the Judge of the Admiralty, the Dean of the Arches, the Aldermen of the City of London, the Recorder, the Common Serjeant, the Judge of the Sheriffs' Court of the City of London, and divers others enumerated in the section, shall be and be taken to be the judges of a court to be called "The Central Criminal Court" to which His Majesty, and his heirs, and successors may direct his general commission as hereinafter mentioned, and which court shall have jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine all offences committed or alleged to be committed as hereinafter specified. Sect. 2 enacts that His Majesty may issue commissions of oyer and terminer to inquire of, hear, and determine all treasons, murders, felonies, and misdemeanours committed within the City of London, and County of Middlesex, and parts of the Counties of Essex, Kent, and Surrey; and sect. 2 goes on to say that, and it shall be lawful for the justices and judges of the Central Criminal Court, or any two or more of them to inquire of, hear, determine and adjudge all such treasons, murders, felonies, and misdemeanours, and all such treasons, &c., which might be inquired of, heard, and determined under any commission of oyer and terminer for the City of London or County of Middlesex, or commission of gaol delivery to deliver the gaol of Newgate, or which, in case the parts of the Counties of Essex, Kent, and Surrey comprised within the limits aforesaid had been counties of themselves, might have been inquired of, heard, and determined under commissions of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery for such counties, and to deliver the said gaol of Newgate (a) After the determination of the rule for the mandamus in this case, the application for the restitution of the cloth was renewed by C. E. Jones, counsel for the prosecution, before the Recorder at the Central Criminal Court, and he then made the order under the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 100. OF THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL Court. 1883. Central Criminal Court a Superior Court Mandamus. REG. OF THE CENTRAL at such times and places as by the said commissions shall be THE JUDGES appointed or as the said justices and judges, by virtue and in AND JUSTICES pursuance thereof, or any two or more of them shall appoint. And to award and issue all precept and process, and use and exercise all the powers and authorities belonging to justices of oyer and terminer, and gaol delivery, &c. Sect. 16 enacts that indictments found at the Sessions of the Peace for the Cities of London and Westminster, the liberty of the Tower of London, Central Cri- the Borough of Southwark and the Counties of Essex, Kent, and minal Court a Surrey, or either of them, may be removed by certiorari before Superior Court justices of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery. Sect. 19 provides for the transmission to the Central Criminal Court of indictments found at the places mentioned in sect. 16. It was then argued that if a mandamus would lie to the justices and judges of the Central Criminal Court it would lie to every court of oyer and terminer in the Kingdom. The case of Ex parte Fernandez (10 C. B. N. S. 3; 30 L. J. C. P. 321) was then cited, where it was held that a Court of Assize was a Superior Court that the presiding judge having committed a witness for contempt of court was not liable to have his decision reviewed by the court of Queen's Bench. Mandamus. C. E. Jones, in support of the rule.-The Central Criminal Court is no doubt, in some sense, a superior court, yet its decision upon an application for an order of restitution of stolen property under the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 100, is subject to review by the High Court of Justice. The case of Ex parte Fernandez (ubi supra) arose out of a commitment at an assize court, admittedly a superior court. What the Recorder was asked to do was a mere ministerial act under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 100, which he ought to have granted. This court issues prohibitions to the Admiralty and Ecclesiatical courts, the judges of which are made justices of the Central Criminal Court. POLLOCK, B.-This is a rule calling upon the justices and judges of the Central Criminal Court to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to command them to make an order under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 100, for the restitution of certain stolen goods. I cannot help thinking that this application was made upon the notion that the duties of the judges and justices of the Central Criminal Court are divisible, that the graver classes of offences usually tried before the judges of the Superior Court are cases tried before the Central Criminal Court as a Superior Court, and that the inferior classes of offences are tried before the Recorder and Commissioners as Justices of Sessions. If that had been shown to be so, a better foundation would have been laid for the argument in support of this rule. But upon reference to the statute by which the Central Criminal Court was created, it clearly appears that there is no such distinction. Originally, justices of the City of London sat from time to time to dispose of offences of a minor degree at the Old Bailey; and it being deemed convenient that persons charged with offences of REG. บ. OF THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. 1883. a graver character committed in the city and in the county of Middlesex should be tried there, commissions were from time to THE JUDGES time issued by the Crown to those justices, and to the judges of AND JUSTICES the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, and also to the judge of the Admiralty Court, because cases of piracy, and crimes committed on the high seas could be most conveniently tried there. In 1834 the Act 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 36 was passed, under which the Central Criminal Court now sits. (His Lordship then cited sects. 1 and 2.) There is nothing in the Act to show Central Crithat when the Central Criminal Court sits to try cases of treason minal Court a or murder, it sits in any other capacity than when it sits at the Superior Court trial of any ordinary crime. I therefore think that the court before which the prisoner in this case of larceny was tried was sitting as a Superior Court of at least as high authority as Justices of Assize sitting under a commissioner of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery on circuit. There is no precedent of this courtthe highest Common Law court of criminal jurisdiction-ever having issued a mandamus to a Superior Court, which the Central Criminal Court clearly is. This rule will therefore be discharged. MANISTY, J.-I entirely concur with my brother Pollock. All the authorities having any application to this subject were elaborately reviewed in the learned judgment of Willes, J., in Ex parte Fernandez (ubi sup.). The result is thus stated at p. 49 of the report in 10 C. B. N. S.: "The result is that, historically, the Courts of Assize as being courts of general jurisdiction in all criminal cases, and having power to try all issues of fact of whatever importance arising in the several counties on their circuits to which, therefore, every man is indebted in a greater or less degree for the protection of his property, his liberty, and his life, do stand in the place of the ancient iters of the justices itinerant and are a Superior Court so to speak by succession; whilst practically, regard being had to the powers which they exercise, they are as to criminal matters courts of the most extensive jurisdiction; and as to civil causes, periodical sittings of the judges of the Superior Courts, or in their necessary absence of others thought worthy to be associated with them, for trying in the country those issues of fact which can be more conveniently disposed of there than in London or Middlesex. For this purpose they are as much branches of the Superior Courts, having all the power which could be exercised by those courts themselves at the trial as are the chief or other justices of those courts sitting at Nisi Prius in London or Middlesex, and the case of a judge at Nisi Prius in town furnishes an apt illustration of the power of a Justice of Assize at the trial of a cause.' That equally applies to the judges and justices of the Central Criminal Court. The rule will therefore be discharged. Rule discharged. Mandamus. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. Monday, Nov. 28, 1881. (Before ROBERT MALCOLM KERR, Esq.) REG. v. DAVID AYLEY.(a) Bigamy-Evidence. On a trial for bigamy two certificates were produced, one purporting to be the certificate of the marriage in 1843, of the first wife to A. B., prior to the marriage with the prisoner in 1875; the other purporting to be a certificate of the death of A. B. in 1880, subsequent to the marriage with the prisoner. Held (after consultation with the Recorder of London), that as prima facie the marriage with the prisoner was illegal, the so-called first wife could give evidence on the trial of the accused. DA AVID AYLEY was charged with feloniously marrying W. Wills for the prosecution.-The prisoner was proved to have married Mary Ann Evans, on October 2, 1875, and to have gone through the ceremony of marriage with Martha Dimmock, on April 18, 1881. In his defence the prisoner produced two certificates, the first being a certificate of the marriage of John Kelly and Mary Ann Leach (under which name Mary Ann Evans was proved to have lived), on May 31, 1843; the second certificate was that of the death of John Kelly, in 1880. Upon the production of these certificates the prisoner proposed to call Mary Ann Evans as a witness on his behalf, on the ground that she was not legally his wife. The COURT (after consultation with the Recorder of London) held that after the production of the certificates above mentioned, Mary Ann Evans was not primâ facie legally married to the prisoner, and was therefore competent to give evidence upon the trial. Mary Ann Evans was then called and gave evidence. The prisoner was acquitted. (a) Reported by W. AUSTIN METCALFE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Aug. 24, 1881. (Before CAVE, J. and KAY, J.) REG. v. LAVAUDIER, TRESSARD, LAUDAIS, PATUReau, and Extradition Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 52), ss. 10, 26-Extradition crime-Fugitive criminal-Duty of magistrate. To satisfy a magistrate in committing a prisoner, charged with an extradition crime, under sect. 10 of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 52, there must be some evidence that the prisoner committed such crime within the jurisdiction of the country seeking extradition. HE material facts are as follows: THE On the night of the 3rd June or the morning of the 4th June, 1881, a burglary was committed in a jeweller's house at Brussels, and a large amount of valuables was abstracted. The prisoners (those who were before the court on this occasion and two others) before the 3rd day of June had been seen in various parts of London with the person who subsequently brought over the stolen goods from Belgium, who had been seen in Brussels at the time of the commission of the burglary, and who was in league with the actual burglars. The prisoners had, sometimes separately and sometimes together, pledged the property thus stolen with numerous pawnbrokers in London. The prisoners were arrested and brought before Sir J. Ingham, the chief magistrate, sitting at Bow-street, charged on the above facts with receiving stolen goods, and being accessories after the fact to a burglary, within the jurisdiction of the Belgian Government. The Chief Magistrate having heard the evidence adduced, both on behalf of the Belgian Government and on behalf of the prisoners, committed all of them to prison for the purpose of being surrendered to the Government of Belgium under the Extradition Act, 1870, and under the treaty in force between this country and Belgium. An application was thereupon made to Cave, J., sitting in chambers, on behalf of the prisoners, for a writ of habeas corpus, and the learned judge made the rule for a writ absolute in the first instance. (a) Reported by JOHN THOMPSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. |