s HUHUXN UUNFT 1929 ~~- -.,»~- ~~~ ‘ ' - `--_-,-- _ A == =p g ‘W23"i;;';i;;'*,-‘""'"f"~“_'i"'“' _ ' "-~' 5¢u"ms'm° 9°" nine-yn" h° hd A' she received $5.00 a week cash from ld°“° “H me P°"°° C.°‘“'9 W°1’k 101:' This is an application from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts soél-:ing Extradition of Major Clark on the charge of non-support -'.~f his wife llqiowsytlais of his igrsorial knowledge, \Th“ 11° ¢0l1gi\lCtB the &-deep! desel- Jennls cidrh and his minor child, as h" hHS.'ei\'@,1_\ Of _"S personally fvri _ ~ David Clark at Cambridge, Mas'-‘~ M111 Cl`“fk4`f°\" 'ld' in ‘ms 1“5m“¢.‘C°urt` And dhl. ,h° hu hem in th' ¢husett_.,_ tion. That Mrs. Clark and son have lm“mm°“l*‘1 Bureau ,ft th’ P°u°° ' _ ' ‘also during the ~past`year__.receiv-ed th°’° “ff .5 V95" 554 of police of Summcl-side and a War- laid from Cambrid80 Weméle U“i°I\ th” hs” in °h"3° ° .° D°P“'!" rant issued for the defendant. Mich is °~D°'h=f ¢hPf1i"b1\ ‘°5°1¢“°` mem °l D°“‘°‘“° Re". °”‘ in P°' _ ‘ "‘ ”- _ ilicecortand inall' eCo'u.rtl Information \\'a.s laid bv the chief ~ V . ,_ rm =. ‘ " . 9. i at the i of rho herring the pro- “fm in- CH “isa mul which hw- li _ - ` _ ~ _ recutlon ca0l;Tn¢loiii»d the charge in elven 4=10ilil;;¥to"b0v»11‘the mother :Th°" had' P°"5°"““Y handled I ' this institution for herself and child. ‘and also her groceries That he I CBU1bl‘1d89 Public l char- ~ iitable organization in wb! tha poor-.' ition of wife and children in this i iE'il‘ 1| ati* _ land Umm dmhm me past won. That many such cases from start to nnish _ regard to the min silpport ot' lhe V _ '_ '_ - .d W u “kite 1 wife, but claimed Extradition as lireviqv-sly t9_~111s_1eai'iiic.Cambridulfi 0! “S f'f°€,‘5‘; Wd 'th th’ against the accused in regard to non- BCCU-‘fd ‘Md 59011 8!'N?Sf0d'-0_5 im-'_ , B mn' ° ° md “bud ~ other charge of lion-support of his 7 having read it mmy “mes and mv ‘ ~ \ _ luppogf the minor cmd' I ' rsonally handled c es of this N O ‘ U N ‘ The roceedlngs herein are under' ` “`1f€~ That 1'10"|U1@\*' YhlV`11C°‘5U\'1 9-'“5=lm8"pe . 54 _ . _ _ _, .l the iaxtrndlilon /lot, Revised stnuues Jennie Clair had ifvedungether ais~_l_’““d 1°’ “in” ¥°-‘“' pf Canada 1927 9,,-U 3-1_ Semoh man and wife. Thai in regard to the? A P°“‘°“ FW" th° “fell” “W ' ‘_ extradition' charge hcrcin lie knew`l“'““t s°tMY'¢h° °°“"° "5 V’ hu °°m' ’ ` three of the said Act together the H Cmon` Trém of ,922 (R s_ that .ie’nnie` clone had gona-i~ierm-of P¢i=H¢v~ anmknowledse and he il arvey c. isza p. xx. xxii and the pnhll- _ a Grirmi Jury atcamndev, Mm-Q25" :ll°”m°‘*<_ ;°:a§::d°'*;°:;°° fx CWD" Of fm" lam' TWMY in ‘helmarmng m°.“°°uiS€_.°l wth n°h__€up.`lwit:rleas" -ir suiiicientl conversent- Canada Gaz:-ne f Of with which there an e ra tion ‘ . arrangement this Part shall applv . f`aI'1'if`d the mdi<"m°“i- ff°\T" me m5°lthe “reign 'hw there is me "Be M during the continuance of such ar-l rangement; but no provision of this Part. which is inconsistent with anyl of the terms of the arragement, shall I have effect to contravene the ar- rangement; and this Part shall be so read and construed as to provide for the execution of the arrangement. The words of the Treaty covering the offence herein are as follows: "Wilful desertion or wilful non-sup- port of _minor or dependent children. " ‘ Procedure ' The procedure as to the hearing of the case is governed by Section 13 of-_the said acfwhloh provides that .subject to the provisions of the said act the Judge shall hear the case in the same manner as nearly as may be as if the person charged were brought before a. Justice of the Peace Oni _Preliniinary Hearing for an in- dictable offence. By subsection fb) of Section 2 of me Extradition Act “A Fugitive" means "a person being or suspected 25 CCC 84 Bmrmed m 2° DLR v i sachusette 'aga.inst7'¢l\e‘ aticiisad con~ rtict Attorney Clarlgs Office to .the said indictment was produced before ed sir ooiinmms folrovis: '-~' = 1. Non-support of wife, Jennie Clark. . -2. Desertioll of wife,~Jcnnia» Clark. 3. Abalidoning wife Jennie 'Clark, leaving 'her ‘a"- burden on' theepiiblic. 4. Unreasonably neglecting to`pro~ vide for The support 'of' his ininor ohlid David clark. ' ' 5. Unrcasoniiblyq neglecting to pra- vide for the support of certain minor children named' David Clal'kf` 6. Being under a. legal duty_to_ pro- vide ‘for the support or nik minor ohiid named David clark did aban- don and leave said minor child in danger of becoming al burden on the public. ' A '_ This indlohne.nt'wns` found' by n Grind Jury of the County of Middle- sex, Mass., 'on the first Monday of November 1928 and in pllrsuanoe of said indictment a Warrant was is- me duly duthentlcmd 1 iihd `e‘on'talh‘.': 'point -" ‘-‘1m‘it\ls_.vlrinto'olicii." Phipsori 6th ire Deering (1915), 23 D. L. R.. B18 Grand Jury Room. A oopyifof; tlie__.‘élted.»hY the`;l~l'!'°};¥\9Y 1°’ ml Wm" monwealth of' Massachusetts as an .authority :or - :rin .proposition 'that' the ior.eign.1aw»misht be inferred or presumed from the indictment for the odence being found in the for- eign state. This case was decided by the full bench of the Supreme Court of Nova. Scotia. The attorney for the accused, how 0‘Heam Co. Ct. J, refused to follow the Deering case on this particular ` ' ' ~` Jndg`e'|' Ruling ‘ ` ' 'l'he'Iearned Judge held that no inference could be drawn or pre- sumption arise from a document not admfssable in evidence. Reference to the last paragraph of the judgment in the Wagner case shows that when it was written the Judge’s attention had not been directed to the cases of Re Goodman (1916) 28 DLR.. 197; 5 Scnnilnw-Gnliuikanao -_.iv -vi c 1,.-»..-.,»» -_ ,~ s,»_~ . ,__ ` t 5.. ml. ,az :__ , > \<.. ` t ‘ . vi, _ _ Electro-Dynamics! New moo ;;°;;,°°_‘;;,;‘;;°,;;,“,‘i;,f_;;f=,;,5_ .= ._ All-Electric. and Battery Sets N[®il)iEiL§ Consoles and Table Models and tl1eNew ' These__new`sets'have'passed`every conceivaB1e`tZ~st`-lmder all chmatiirsonditions-ln if ` "" the laboratory,' in ,city and country-in skilled and unskilled hands. .. an _,wr w -» \ 'H V _,r ¢ of hem in canada who is accused sued thereon out of the Superiori _ ; ` ' _~. AII\0I!1€llt’S trial. COIIViI]C6 yOu that 81°C far thB mOdB]B °f °°_f1v1¢f=d Of an sXt“d*_“°“ mme- °°`*"~°f M"“°”‘*‘°‘“ ‘° “‘°"”h°“‘f igiigifle :glow imfgezoeiliit li »~,;_'_ .-' Kent has ever made-and the whole world knows what (hal meansl. ' - ev o gg l o v comn;itted_ within the jurisdiction of' the °°£'j'5,°d‘ .°' `»°PpY °f which W" which cm” decide mn m mum! any °m‘m ° “ °'” V ' tion proceedings a foreign indict- Byf s“b"';€§-ti-°n (b) M “cum M °t ' “H39 in Warrant , = -- 'ment il receivable in evidence und!! said_Act provided "in the case of . . ' semen as lu! me Umm* Euan” ' '.‘_‘i‘“"’°1*‘°°“°‘°“ °’ °~" °"°’“‘”“°”. The charge' rn the Winans oov- set. 'rho aheorirlg' caps was followed crime, if *wth evidence is produced er, in A general way th-:‘_'s1x cdmts | mzlmituh Commbh H; "_ Y_ v_ “_ “S “`°“1d':’“_’?°"d1”3 W the 1“W_°f in the indictment. There is also at- raelowitz 29 0.0.0. 823. canada' S“b1°°t V0 the P"°Vl5l°"5 °f _tached to the copy of the said in- No decision oi’ our Courts on this this Pm-'1\.‘-’"fY hi’ °°”“°*°i“1 1°' dlohnont on nrildavit _oi the me point cited and in tno._a\»¢ iris)-_if ill_=~9;irg\° had b°°_“ ¢°°_““1*° Jennie clark rioting thygohs is -the saline of hlhdirmauthority 1 mare Wi if\_C°'=\“\_» .i»h¢ i“f18° 'hell 1-me wire of Mayor cldri€j'wh*o;_~st|nds'lli- thrpooring om as a precedent to his W“"‘“lt fm' the mmmmll °f 1*-M dicted in Massachilsettsfé for non- which due recognition should be IU- fugmve l° th” nearest °°“"'°“i°“t support of herself and minor él'1ild,fen. On'-,the chlrge (fohn nofiirof the rison there to remain until surren rant. hw beonitduly proved before me. ll ~ .. ii i ._.,., <7q{(b» #Lf I 4 » - give the word “radiog a new meaning. 1 . 1 .*‘ C \ 9 / On view at .your dealers shortly! Get all details including prices See them! Hear them! P ‘ That she was married 'to ac§lisedf6l'1'min'al C0de)'=being read tothe ne- ` ' ' » . _ ._ gl __ _ ._ _, 1 . i ' _ dered to -the foreign state, or dis- wth Januavry 1919' and that hé' Li cused he “ned he would ‘ive evb / nnnxu _ on..-so _snoring to nw. me ,mr of M me vm 01 _ on hu M ,,,,,,,,_ ‘_ d b0y denc 2- If Slfch evidence is “M 1'-“'°d“°' David. That she has not received The prisoner came to the bm! and ’ . f -_ _ _--V - ed the judge shall order him to. _be any support from amused. m,__hér_ w“.mq_n_ The praouum .gggl-my hu ¢‘mh_m“_ ,nut ‘bout ‘ ye" qui” meh u that before me_ In pre_ other papers wmch would rob bl determined on the trial before a pe- in U5. v. Webber ZDCCC p sued!- discliarsed." _ sm or said mmo;jchud`sm9e 'mhlfobjwwdlw the unused., gmnzjny ‘qc ha “M ‘Q nm” mmm m_ ummuy Inquiries under the crlm_lcm ‘mm in Bu. Au this is rzueg bi tit Jury." see also judgment of Mar- Also n Rosenberg 3| Man L lm 439 mspechr Ackerlf. .remmmy May, 1928 and that she and said evidence save ll i0_ th* _¢°f°.U°°5_ and with the remains of 111| mgghgg- inal Code which procedure governs way of defence and whether the un "uns CJ' in G'°“b"' V UM' In mm' m hgndmm th’ 1" U . f child Wen? ’°_°°mn§ “id .!"?!\1..Csm-. ment1U.1\§d _iii 59,6340” 15 °f‘fl'\° 5** for burial having a return ticket gnq that of the present case it is open to same is a valid defence at law or not qu” (Wm 3 DLR' 3" “li 9 no' ‘M nm' '!‘°°d ‘ll 7 zu John M._ Ackerly, Police Inspector bridge Public' W`t'=1f_arc_ " tradition Act which mentions'-Uw0¢1mm¢|n|-ggi “tum w mu,-chu_ the accused ii' hsso wishes, to goin- is not my province to determine in thu' °f w°u"°°' E"l“'ldm°l'l -N480 (UUNUIUU 0° 7*” ul Of Cambfldie M555- We-'M596 9* f0l' In ““°m@1'5 5fmlV!¢"°méd f1@i‘éiH' 'defences av`\_il¢\§1e 'namelyz That _the _,,m_ -[mg on hu "mm W we in his full defence before the Magis- a preliminary hearing such as this """_' A K' l0WS= That he lives in Cambridge. she states." that- when . aeoiuedlieicmaenoe shamed is or it political nat- gn,” mm, M ,M stopped by th, ents but the lattter cannot try the under the Extradition act In the M°-”_¥*¢h“5°“°- KMWS the °¢°“5°'5 C“mb’l‘l9F~ nm?-5 1" 11335-'h°~\1F¢ 0! “U55 *DG OUUHCG °hl\‘K¢¢UB H05 rnlnnlgrntlnn `u¢h¢,-lm, mam, he case nor weigh evidence as between case of Ric Latimer 10 occ 244 Maier Clerk. and identified him in was ioinished' -lui funds 't'o coder in extradition crime:-.siting mare- M4 mt gompmd with ,,,,,_,A,, ,m_ the parties. it is for the Mnguirm (being extradition pi-ooeedlngsi slit court on .tho person for whom ex- all orpeiueat-~°`iaéida1hg'~ hlyrshirrl. inént‘4s.'seugiri :la coo izs; U._s _v._ m mon “OM to oonslder whether or not a pi-inn on o. .1 nf, 241 5, , _ ‘ Q O _ _ lar mul: 'rho : _ tradition is sought herein. That the That _after 1-ig,-,iglpgin May-108B__sh0i Webber l0_00C at p. 5; _and-Re Ros- "mm Umm, sum wopégmxt facie case has been made out and ill D y ' ` accused left cambridge the latter did .n0.t{_hea__r;_,' Irvin. ,him ._I_°1'.twn neberl 18.Man L. R.. 'at p. (60. ‘On ,mi .Bom "M fix; had tu plus such has been done it is his duty] "This constitutes the evidence that Dart of April 1928. He knew the r-ite months. when he' 'sent a letter 'en-_ the other hand in Crankshaw'| Cri- ‘mm “penal ‘nd mt hnhu um to send the case up to the Supreme ' has been “duced mime thu Conn. 5]* of-'rho mused. .ionnlo clark and oissmf ii1.oir"iiiii dh”-"h‘éeiin{;~ fiiiin5’aii‘ir'i»i1'1'0¢°°dihS8~ my duty under the circumstances as ' W d\»\C»ak¢ °““°d h” “"°°‘ 1" °“"“’“““° ‘"1 5" d"S““.‘3F°ef"“}“.l-?‘..S_l‘}_’4‘f"?" £9419. ._ . D'L'“"°° '*’ “"“`_’“ ` " ' "‘ PI-inns' 'mind mana. shown by this évldenoe. AA has been ' ‘ 'fr ‘ hue' / years. The child David is about 9 cd to work n order to supplyther- imrst Yalear s¢§ol'-"Il!iG\l#‘.‘ ~ I your old. 'rhot the ‘said wire and hoir ond child with tho necemiil " 1iy’%h`r`aconqQ_ ui ,_ .'. °f 1’f‘?~.Th.° .’,=)_“i~i..]S'.." FH l".‘.":°. ‘I l~1*.°, '_ .,_ . _ . - -- ~ tio him' nadlles§ed’to;eI