53. _The Adventures of a South American Physician._
In 1905 the President of a South American Republic visited London with
the intention of undergoing an operation by a famous surgeon. He was
accompanied, among others, by Doctor Alcorta, his physician-in-ordinary,
who was watching the case. After dining with friends one evening at a
well-known restaurant, during which he drank very freely of wine and
liqueurs, Doctor Alcorta proceeded to the Empire Theatre. He at first
listened quietly, but, being displeased by the song of one of the
performers, he became noisy, had to be removed, and on proving violent
was handed over to the police. Next morning he was brought up before a
magistrate on the charge of having been drunk and disorderly.
54. _Extradition of a British Subject._
The following is a cutting from the police court reports of a daily
paper:
"At Bow-street, Julius Kuhliger, _alias_ Nollier, 35, of Field-road,
Forest-gate, was again brought up before Sir A. de Rutzen for
extradition on the charge of obtaining money by false pretences in
Belgium. Mr H. Lewis defended. In consequence of certain complaints
Detective-sergeant Brogden kept observation upon a newsagent's shop in
Shoreditch, and on the 2nd inst. he saw the prisoner call there and
receive several letters. He followed the prisoner and saw him examine
the contents, and then arrested him. The letters were found to contain
four money orders of the total value of L6. 7_s._ 1_d._, and the
prisoner was brought up at the Old-street Police-court and charged with
being in the unlawful possession of them. It was afterwards discovered
that the orders were the proceeds of an alleged swindle in Belgium
which had been carried on from this country, and the original charge
was abandoned in favour of the extradition proceedings.
Detective-sergeant Brogden now gave evidence that the prisoner claimed
to be a British subject, alleging that his mother was English, though
his father was a Swiss. Since his arrest he had made a statement to the
effect that about three months ago, finding himself in financial
difficulties, he thought he would embark upon a system of fraud. He
advertised in the German newspapers, he continued, stating that an
English lady wished to send her two daughters to Germany for the
purpose of learning the language of the country. Several persons
replied offering to take the children, and he wrote to each of them
accepting their offer, and stating that the luggage had already been
sent on. He followed this by another letter purporting to come from a
firm of railway carriers, saying that they had been instructed to
forward certain trunks, and would do so on the receipt of their fees in
advance. He arranged for the replies to these letters to be sent to
five or six different newsagents' shops in various parts of London, and
each place brought him in an average of about L10. The prisoner, on
oath, now said that he was a British subject, and Mr Lewis asked the
magistrate to say that this was not a case in which he ought to
surrender the prisoner to a foreign Power. The magistrate said that
with regard to the point raised as to the accused's being a British
subject, the article in the Treaty with Belgium dealing with that
matter said that 'in no case or on any consideration whatever shall the
high contracting parties be bound to surrender their own subjects
whether by birth or naturalization.' It had been held that such
provision implied that the high contracting parties might surrender
their own subjects, and that such surrender must be left to the
discretion of the Secretary of State. He ordered the prisoner to be
committed for extradition, and it would be for the Home Secretary to
decide whether it was a case in which he ought not to sanction the
surrender."
55. _The Case of the "Oldhamia."_
The following appeared in the _Times_ of Dec. 14th, 1908, dated St
Petersburg, Dec. 13th:
"The Admiralty Appeal Court yesterday confirmed the judgment of the
Libau Prize Court justifying the capture and destruction of the British
steamer _Oldhamia_, bound fur Hong-kong with American oil. She was
taken by the cruiser _Oleg_ of Admiral Rozhdestvensky's fleet off
Formosa on the night of May 18, 1905, and a fortnight later, while
proceeding to Vladivostok, struck on the Kurile reef and was burned by
the prize crew to prevent her from falling into the hands of the
Japanese. The Court disallowed a claim for damages by the captain and
crew for the loss of their personal effects on the formal grounds that
the claim had not been presented at the first hearing of the case. It
allowed a claim of the Standard Oil Company to recover the cost of 200
empty kerosene cases. It confirmed the Libau verdict disallowing the
claims of the Manchester and Salford Company, the owners of the vessel,
for L61,580, and those of the Standard Oil Company for cargo consisting
of 149,462 cases of kerosene, valued at $123,134 (L24,627).
"The circumstances of the capture were fully detailed at the trial
before the Libau Prize Court on June 12, 1907. The arguments presented
by Mr. Berlin, counsel for the plaintiffs, and the law officers of the
Crown, bore first upon the _prima facie_ evidence of the _Oldhamia's_
destination and cargo, and secondly, on the point whether kerosene
rightly came under the Russian declaration of contraband of war. It was
admitted that the cargo was intended for Japan, but solely for
commercial purposes. The principal legal adviser to the Admiralty
submitted, however, that kerosene was now used also as a fuel for
warships. Moreover, the vessel was considerably out of her course. The
captain was unable to produce the charter-party or bills of lading, and
one of the seamen declared that she carried guns at the bottom of the
hold. Admiral Rozhdestvensky sent 300 sailors to displace the cargo in
order to verity this statement, but they worked for two days without
getting lower than the main deck. Mr. Berlin invoked the fact that the
Procurator at Libau declined to recognize kerosene as contraband within
the meaning of the Russian declaration, which specifically mentions
naphtha. He argued at length on the question of conditional and
absolute contraband of war. Upon these points the Russian and British
views have been, and remain, at variance, as exemplified in all the
prize cases connected with the late war.
"The result of the present appeal, however onerous to the owners,
cannot be regarded as unexpected. A member of the Embassy staff
attended the proceedings in behalf of the British Government."
56. _An Ambassadors Estate._
Musurus Pasha, the Turkish ambassador in London, died there in December
1907. In February, 1908, Mme Musurus took out letters of administration
in England, and proceeded to pay the debts and the death duties payable
in respect of the property in this country. The greater part of the
ambassador's estate was situated in Turkey and Thessaly, and the only
property in England was certain shares in companies. Two of the
next-of-kin of the ambassador brought (in December 1908) an action to
obtain the administration of his estate and also an injunction
restraining Mme Musurus from removing any of the assets out of the
jurisdiction of the English courts, or from dealing with them otherwise
than in due course of administration.