[EXTRADITION COMMISSIONER'S COURT, MONTREAL.]

BEFORE HIS HONOUR F. X. CHOQUET, EXTRADITION COMMISSIONER.

THE KING v. STONE (No. 1).

Extradition-Bankruptcy law-Defrauding creditors-Offences made criminal by laws of both countries-Section 29b of United States Bankruptcy Act-Retroactivity of the Extradition Treaty of 1906 between Great Britain and the United States-Non-existence of any general Bankruptcy Act in Canada-British North America Act, section 91, sub-section 27-Cr. Code (Canada) sec. 417.

1. The extradition convention of 1907 amending the extradition treaty of 1889 between Great Britain and the United States by making extraditable "offences, if made criminal by the laws of both countries. against bankruptcy law" is retroactive as of the date when the extradition treaty of 1889 came into force.

2. Extradition will be ordered for an offence under the Federal Bankruptcy Act of the United States, section 296 which enacts that "a person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not to exceed two years, upon conviction of the offence of having knowingly and fraudulently, while a bankrupt, or after his discharge, concealed from his trustee any of the property belonging to his estate in bankruptcy," such enactment being similar in its terms to section 417 of the Canadian Criminal Code, sub-section 2, which is in effect a bankruptcy law.

MONTREAL, QUE., February 20, 1911.

CHOQUET, P.M. :-The prisoner is charged under the Extradition Act with the offence of having, in the State of Massachusetts, one of the United States of America about the 22nd day of August, 1906, knowingly and fraudulently having concealed his property with intent to defraud his creditors.

Prisoner was arrested under clause 417 of the Criminal Code, which seems to be similar to the law in the United States, as appears by a certified copy now of record.

Some objections have been raised by the defence: (1) that there was no bankruptcy law in this country; (2) that the offence

17-c.c.c. XVII.

mentioned in clause 417 of the Criminal Code is not applicable and cannot constitute an offence for which extradition may be granted.

I find that the extradition treaty between Great Britain and the United States was amended at different times, and that on the 13th March, 1907, it was provided in a supplementary treaty that offences against bankruptcy law would be included in the schedule of offences and crimes mentioned in the treaty.

Another objection raised is that the date of the committing of the offence for which demand for extradition is made, is previous to the coming into force of the last amendment to the treaty, and that consequently the treaty cannot apply; and also that in the Extradition Act, clause 417 of the Criminal Code is especially excepted from the list of offences mentioned in the schedule.

By reading the treaty between Great Britain and the United States which came into force on the 13th March, 1907, and which can be found in the Canada Gazette, vol. 40, p. 2271, I came to the conclusion that this agreement between the two countries has a retroactive effect, and I find some authorities in support of that, in the case of Collins, reported in vol. 10, Canadian Criminal Cases, page 70, and also in the case of Cannon, reported in 14 Canadian Criminal Cases, p. 186.

On reading the Extradition Act, clause 3, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the treaty which came into force in March, 1907, would be perfectly useless if offences provided in clause 417 of the Canadian Code would not be included. As to the United States at all events, it would be an abrogation of the Extradition Act.

By reading clause 3 one cannot come to any other conclusion. This clause says:

"In the case of any foreign State with which there is an . extradition arrangement, this part shall apply during the continuance of such arrangement, but no provision of this part which is inconsistent with any of the terms of the

arrangement shall have effect to contravene the arrangement: and this part shall be so read and construed as to provide for the execution of the arrangement."

Our Extradition Act is a general Act, but this law, or any clause of it, must not be inconsistent with the treaty. The treaty provides especially for the extradition of persons for offences against bankruptcy law, which offence was not included. prior to that date, and to give effect to that treaty, as the law says should be done, I must come to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence for which he may be extradited to the United States.

I should say also the jurisprudence in this country is that a man should be extradited if there is a prima facie case of an offence committed in a foreign country, provided an offence of a similar nature exists in our law, though it may not be quite identical.

In this case, in the United States there is a general bankruptcy law, which provides for punishment in case of concealment of property with intent to defraud.

In this country we have no bankruptcy law, but we have in our Criminal Code a clause which is very nearly similar to the one mentioned in the United States law. The prisoner is therefore committed.

Committal for extradition.

[FIRST DIVISION COURT OF WENTWORTH, ONTARIO.] BEFORE HIS HONOUR, JUDGE SNIDER, COUNTY JUDGE OF Wentworth. THE KING v. WILDFONG AND LANG.

Prize fighting-Statutory definition considered-Elements of offenceBoxing exhibition—Contract-Cr. Code (1906) secs. 2, 105.

1. A boxing exhibition of ten rounds, with six-ounce gloves, in which there is no prize or reward to be contested for, but for which one of the boxers was to receive a fixed sum and the other a fixed percentage of the gate receipts is not necessarily a "prize fight," within Code secs. 2 and 105.

2. Where the contestants had signed articles for such an exhibition of boxing but were arrested on commencing the bout, it is not to be presumed that they were going to have an encounter or fight as distinguished from an exhibition, and their conviction should be set aside.

3. While there need be no prize to constitute the statutory offence of "prize fighting" as defined by Code sec. 2, sub-section 31, there must be an encounter between two persons, each intending to so injure the other that he cannot or will not continue the contest.

DECIDED: March 17, 1911.

On the second day of March, 1911, the police magistrate for Hamilton convicted the defendants of engaging as principals in a prize fight and imposed a fine. This conviction is now appealed against. By agreement of counsel the evidence taken before the police magistrate was put in as the only evidence to be given on this appeal.

SNIDER, County J.-The Hamilton Bowling and Athletic Club is incorporated and has a large membership of the young men of the city. They have furnished and equipped premises for athletic exercises and sports. This club decided to engage some expert professional boxers to give "a boxing exhibition." An admission fee was to be charged those who desired to witness it, and from this source the men giving the exhibition were to be paid. By resolution M. M. Robinson, a member of the club, was requested to take the matter in hand and complete all arrangements. He arranged for four "bouts." Three bouts were given without interference. The fourth was to have been between the appellants, Wildfong and Lang. The fact is that this fourth bout did not take place because the chief of police, acting on instructions from some person whom he saw fit to obey, announced some days before the time fixed for the event that

he would arrest these men at once on their appearance. It was thereupon arranged that these men should appear on the stage ready to give their exhibition, and be then arrested and test the validity of the arrest. This was carried out. They were therefore not convicted for anything they did, but for what they had agreed to do, which agreement, it is admitted for the purpose of this case, they intended and began to carry out.

The appellants are called professional boxers because they are more than ordinarily skilled in the science and are paid to give scientific boxing exhibitions. According to the evidence neither one has ever engaged in what is commonly known as a "prize fight." The evidence is that they were to engage in ten rounds under "the regular Canadian boxing rules." There was no prize or reward of any kind to be contested for, nothing to be gained by the winner. There was to be no decision. "It was not a sparring for points, simply an exhibition with no decision." (Question and answer 86.) There was no challenge, and they were to use six-ounce gloves, and were expected to give the full ten rounds.

A written contract was entered into with each appellant as to his remuneration. The contract with Wildfong was as follows:

"I, Clayton Wildfong, of the town of Berlin, in the county of Waterloo, hereby agree with Melville M. Robinson, of the city of Hamilton in the county of Wentworth, to give a boxing exhibition with Hilliard Lang, in the city of Hamilton, on the twenty-seventh day of February, 1911, under the auspices of the Hamilton Bowling and Athletic Club, at eight o'clock in the evening, or so soon thereafter as the arrangements will permit, in any place in Hamilton selected by said M. M. Robinson, and in consideration for my services I am to receive one hundred and twenty-five dollars in cash, my railway fare and hotel expenses, and also the railway fare and expenses of my trainer and manager, and I hereby agree to post $50 as a guarantee of my