surrender is demanded is one of a political character, or if he prove to the satisfaction Re MEUNIER. of the police magistrate, or the court before whom he is brought on habeas corpus, or to the Secretary of State, that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character.

1894.

Extradition-
Political

offence

Evidence

The Solicitor-General (R. T. Reid, Q.C.), the Attorney-General (Sir John Rigby, Q.C., and Sutton with him), appeared to show Anarchism— cause against the writ.-The evidence against the prisoner was amply sufficient to justify his commitment under the Extradition Corroboration Act, and the evidence of the woman who was the prisoner's Separate accomplice, was not only sufficient in itself, but was abundantly charges in one corroborated by the other evidence.

Burnie, for the prisoner, contended that there was nothing to show that the prisoner was the same Meunier of whom the woman spoke in her evidence. It was not enough to receive depositions taken against the prisoner abroad and in his absence that the prisoner is of the same name; he ought to be identified. There is no physical description of Meunier, and there was no photograph of him before the magistrate. If Madame Bricout's evidence be struck out there is absolutely no evidence of identification. Madame Bricout was an accomplice, and her evidence therefore required material corroboration, but there was no real corroboration of it. If this offence had been committed in England it is clear that a judge would have advised the jury that they ought not to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice; and the prisoner would have been acquitted; clearly, therefore, this is not a case for extradition. Sect. 10 of the Act points out that a magistrate shall not commit a prisoner under the Extradition Act unless the evidence produced is such as would justify his committal for trial if the crime of which he is accused had been committed in England. It is not sufficient that there is some evidence. This court will review the discretion of the magistrate: (Re Castioni, 64 L. T. Rep. 344; (1891) 1 Q. B. 149; 60 L. J. 22, M. C.; Re Guerin, 60 L. T. Rep. 538; 58 L. J. 42, M. C.) As to the explosion at the Lobau Barracks it was a political offence within sect. 3, sub-sect. 1, of the Act. No words were added by the Legislature as to what constitutes a political offence, nor is there any restriction placed on the words in the Act. The plain simple meaning of the words should be taken, namely, that they refer to an offence committed against the State with a political motive, and with a political object. The explosion at the Lobau Barracks is clearly such a political offence.

CAVE, J.-I am of opinion that the writ in this case should be refused. The principal ground upon which Mr. Burnie rested his case was that there was no evidence before the magistrate of the identity of the Meunier whom he had committed to Holloway with the Meunier who is spoken of by the witnesses in the depositions sent from France. That was the point to which I think he attached the most importance. The second point was that the evidence against Meunier was that of an accomplice or

VOL. XVIII.

с

of accomplice

commitment -33 & 34 Vict. c. 52,

s. 3 (1).

1894.

Re MEUNIER. an accessory after the fact, and that there was no corroboration of her evidence in any material particular. The third point was that there being two charges against the prisoner, there was Extradition only one commitment to Holloway. The fourth point was that Political the offence was a political offence within the meaning of those offenceAnarchism Words in the Extradition Act, and not an ordinary crime. I Evidence think it is more convenient to take the second point first, and to Corroboration inquire whether there was material corroboration of the evidence of accomplice which no doubt rested mainly upon Madame Bricout. She -Separate charges in one gives a description of her acquaintance with Meunier, and says commitment that some time in March he came to lodge with her and her -33 & 34

Vict. c. 52, s. 3 (1).

husband, and from that date she gives a pretty particular and full account of him, and what they did together down to the time when the offence at the Café Véry was actually committed. It is important to see whether in point of fact she is corroborated with regard to this in a material particular. Now she says that during the time they were living together there arose a dispute between them owing to Meunier having broken into the place when he found it locked, and that that circumstance happened is abundantly corroborated by the evidence of Roy, the locksmith and his wife, and by the evidence of the concierge, at the place where they lived and his wife. No doubt it is said that all that might have been perfectly true, and yet that Meunier might have been perfectly innocent of the crime with which he stands charged. No doubt that is true, and if that matter stood alone there would hardly have been sufficient corroboration in a material particular to meet the general principle which Mr. Burnie invokes. But the case goes a great deal beyond that. There is a grey valise which plays an important part in this investigation. It is left by someone who cannot be precisely identified in the immediate neighbourhood of the Café Véry. Madame Bricout says that the explosive mixture was produced from that grey valise, and that Meunier had such valise is deposed to by the concierge and his wife. But further than that, there is the statement of Madame Bricout that on the Friday before the offence was committed she went to the house of one Francis in order to get clothes for disguising the identity of the prisoner Meunier, and, of course, that is far more nearly approaching the offence itself than the matter which I have spoken of before. Now, in that she is corroborated by Madame Roy, who says she saw Madame Bricout go to the house of the concierge and come away from it again with a bundle, and by Madame Scellery, who says that she saw Meunier wear the clothes which are shown to have been the clothes of Francis on Sunday and on Monday, the day when the explosion took place. Now those are very important matters, and do seem to me to corroborate in a material particular the evidence which Madame Bricout has given. It is, of course, possible to take each one of these and say, "Well, this is but a small matter," and "that is but a small matter," and "the other is only a small matter."

They may all in themselves be small matters, but the whole of Re MEUNIER. them taken together form very strong circumstantial evidence 1894.

Political

of accomplice -Separate charges in one commitment -33 & 34 Vict. c. 52,

8. 3 (1).

to show that there must at all events be a considerable amount of truth in what Madame Bricout is saying. I think that the ExtraditionSolicitor-General was warranted in saying that there was cor- offenceroborative evidence which was sufficient for the magistrate to Anarchism— act upon. Before, however, passing from this point, I should Evidencelike to say that in my judgment the fact of whether there is Corroboration corroborative evidence or not is not conclusive of the duty of the magistrate, but he has to exercise a discretion in these cases. The law is not that a man against whom there is only the evidence of an accessory or accomplice is entitled to be acquitted; the law falls short of that. The judge must lay the evidence before the jury, though at the same time it is the practice of judges to warn the jury against acting upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. No doubt, however, the jury are in law entitled to have that evidence laid before them, and if they choose to disregard the warning of the judge, and are so satisfied of the truth of the accomplice that they will act on his testimony, I know no law which says that they shall not, nor any power of setting such a verdict aside in a Court of law. At the same time, the magistrate must of course act upon his own discretion, and if he had said, "The evidence here is that of an accomplice, there is no material corroboration, and I do not believe that any jury would act upon that testimony, and on that ground I discharge the accused," I could not say that he was wrong. On the other hand, as the learned magistrate has taken the opposite view, I am also unable to say that he is wrong. The matter must be one for the discretion of the magistrate, with which I think this Court would hardly be justified in interfering. My brother Collins reminds me that I have omitted two other matters of corroboration which seem to me also to go some way. According to Madame Bricout it was arranged that the actual perpetrator of the offence should take the explosive into the café and should then be called out by someone outside, who was thus to give him an excuse for going outside and leaving the explosive within, and there is peculiar evidence given by two witnesses, one the waiter, and the other a person who was at the café, having some refreshment there, who both say that they saw a man outside just before the explosion making signs. Each of these two witnesses thought himself to be the person to whom the signs were made, and both went out and saw the man and then found that they were mistaken. That is a peculiar corroboration no doubt of the story which Madame Bricout tells. Further, there is the statement of Madame Scellery, that after the offence had been committed she was with Meunier on a steamer, when Meunier gave her such a vivid and detailed description of the way in which the explosion had taken place as to impress her with the conclusion that he must have been a party to it himself. There is, further, the fact that later on he told her that it would be necessary for him to leave the country

Re MEUNIER. for a time for reasons which he did not very fully explain, but which she appears to have taken to have referred to the explosion 1894. at the Café Véry. All these matters seem to me to be abundant Extradition- corroboration, in acting upon which the magistrate rightly exercised Political his discretion. The next point was as to the evidence of identity. offenceAnarchism Mr. Burnie said, even if it be taken for granted that there was Evidence perfectly good evidence against a man of the name of Meunier, as Corroboration having been engaged in these offences, there was no evidence that of accomplice the man who was before Sir John Bridge was the man Meunier, charges in one spoken of by the witnesses. No one was called to identify him as commitment the man to whom the witnesses in the deposition referred. That,

- Separate

-33 & 34

Vict. c. 52,

s. 3 (1).

undoubtedly, is perfectly true, but nevertheless it seems to me
there was sufficient evidence of his identity to justify the magis-
trate in what he did. [His Lordship went through the evidence.]
With regard to the question whether this is a political offence or
not, it appears to me that there must be, in order to have a
political offence, two distinct parties, each seeking to impose the
Government of its choice upon the other, and when you have two
distinct parties of that kind, then no doubt offences incidentally
committed in the course of an attempt by one party to impose the
Government of its choice on the other, are to be regarded as so
connected with the political contest as to amount to political
offences. Here, however, are not two parties, one seeking to
impose its Government on the other. The party to which the
prisoner Meunier belongs has no form of Government which it seeks
to impose at all; it is the enemy apparently of all Governments,
and its operations are directed not primarily against the Govern-
ment but only incidentally, and secondarily against the members
of the political body, but they are directed primarily against the
members of the general body, the citizens, and apparently only
casually against the Government or governing body.
offences of which anarchists are said to be, and in some cases
have been proved to be, the authors, are in the main offences
against the citizens generally, rather than against the Govern-
ment quâ Government, and in my judgment such proceedings
cannot rightly be classed as political offences, and so escape from
the meshes of the Extradition Act. I am very clearly of
opinion that the writ ought not to go on the ground of this
being a political offence, because it was not a political offence
within the meaning of the Extradition Act, but an ordinary
crime against a private citizen, and not against members of
the Government. I am of opinion, therefore, that the application
fails on all grounds, and must be dismissed.

The

COLLINS, J.-I am entirely of the same opinion, and on the same grounds.

Application refused.

Solicitor for the prisoner, T. O. Evans.
Solicitor for the Secretary of State, The Solicitor to the
Treasury.

CROWN CASES RESERVED.

April 28, May 5 and 28, 1894.

(Before HAWKINS, MATHEW, CAVE, GRANTHAM, CHARLES, WILLIAMS, LAWRANCE, WRIGHT, COLLINS, BRUCE, and KENNEDY, JJ.)

REG. v. DENNIS. (a)

Unsound food-Fruit sold wholesale-Sale in bulk under condition that unsound portion be destroyed-Liability to seizure in hands of retail dealer-Questions for magistrates and juryBona fides of sale-Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), s. 47.

In order to convict a person under sub-sect. 3 of sect. 47 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, of having sold for the food of man an article unfit for the food of man, it is necessary to prove that the article at the time it was found in the purchaser's possession was liable to be seized for one or other of the reasons stated in sub-sect. 1 of the section. That is to say, because being diseased, unsound, unwholesome, or unfit for the food of man, it was exposed for sale or deposited in some place over which the purchaser had control for the purpose of sale or preparation for sale.

Further, assuming such facts to be proved, it is a question for the magistrates or jury, having regard to all the circumstances of the sale, to say whether or not the article was intended for the food of man by the defendant when sold by him; and whether, if it was represented at the time of sale not to be so intended, such representation was made bonâ fide.

So held by the majority of the court, Mathew, J. dissentiente.

CASE stated for the consideration of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved by the chairman of the London County Quarter Sessions as follows:

John William Dennis was tried before me at the Quarter Sessions for the county of London, holden at the Sessions House, Newington, on the 13th day of Jan., 1894, upon an indictment (a copy of which is annexed to this case, charging him with having committed an offence under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), s. 47, sub-sect. (3).

1. The defendant is an English and foreign fruit and potato broker, and carries on business in Covent Garden.

(a) Reported by R. CUNNINGHAM GLEN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.