DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate whether it is true that James Roy M'Murrich, a domiciled Scotchman, residing in Paisley, was, on the 28th of October last, arrested in that town on a warrant obtained in Bristol, on a charge of embezzlement, and conveyed to Bristol, and there tried and sent to prison; whether the offence charged against him was admittedly committed in Scotland; and, if so, if he would explain why M'Murrich was allowed to be taken for trial outside the realm of Scottish Law; and whether, before M'Murrich's arrest on the English warrant, any complaint had been lodged with the Scottish criminal authorities, and with what result?
§ *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) ButeshireThe facts are as stated in the first part of the question. The offence charged was embezzlement of money belonging to the employers of the accused, who were merchants in Bristol. When an English magistrate has granted a warrant, the Scotch magistrates and police are bound to effectuate the execution of the warrant, and to send the accused to England; and in this matter there is by Statute complete reciprocity between the two countries. In this instance the question of jurisdiction was for the English and not the Scotch authorities to determine. Whether, in this case, the warrant ought to have been granted, or whether the English Court had jurisdiction to try the offence, are questions on which it is not within my province to pronounce. No complaint had been lodged with the criminal authorities in Scotland regarding this offence; but, in August last, a complaint was made to the Procurator Fiscal at Glasgow accusing M'Murrich of embezzling money belonging to another Bristol firm. In that case there did not appear to the Procurator Fiscal to be grounds for preferring a criminal charge.