SECTION XIV. 53. _the Adventures of a South American Physician._

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 £6. 7s. 1d., 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 £10. 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 £61,580, and those of the Standard Oil Company for cargo consisting of 149,462 cases of kerosene, valued at $123,134 (£24,627).

"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.