A formal appeal has been sled by. the attorneys for the accused' in, the ease of Mr. and Mrs. Vandererayssen, alias Mr. fand Mrs, Beuret, commonly knowe 85. the Noulens case. Counsel for appellants are "Dr. F. Withelm and Mr. T. T. Loh, of the firm of Messrs. Musso, Fischer & Wilhelm.
Te may be recalled that the two foreigners were. charged. with Communist, activities in' Chinn the basis of a number of Communist documents which were found ina flav in Nanking Road, said to have been occupied by the' accused.
Sie"and Mes. ° Vandereruyssen were. extradited" to, the Shanghai end. Woosung Gendarmerie issioner's Office and sent to Nat king for trial by a specially con stituted court which is understood {to consist. of Sve judges appointed by "General Chiang Kai-shek, the Military' Council, the 'Central Executive Commitiee of the Ku mintang, the 'Ministey of Justice, find the' Mayor of Nanking.
The appeal against the ruling of the Second Branch of the Kiangsu High Court Nanking and is now being. dealt with by the Supreme Court, 'The document. follows:—The appellants. being dissatisfied with the ruling delivered by the Second Branch of the Kiangst High Court on August 8, 1931, acling' to Which. accused were handed over to the - Gendarmerie Commissioner of the Shanghai and Woowung Area for trial by. a wuilitary' court, while. reserving their rights on, the question that appellants are. Swiss citizens and ould be handed over to the Swies Consular authorities at Shanghai for. trial, respectfully lodge this appeal and submit as reasons as say whether this case should be tiea'by the military authorities er ott ae" word. sjueadietion" Petits als of the law relating to criminal protura. refers to the ferisiction of courts as stated chapter 2 of the frst volume of the some. law, to wit, the question Srisaiction of the courts of the Fest instance, the, District Courts andthe High Courts, "Whether the case should be sub ject to martial trial or. mot is not S*Gueston of jurisdiction. AR ap-Peal, therefore, lies against the Efarementonet ruling. "Et the cass fod been handed over to another High Court for'trah 1 would be 2 different. matter but, aa the ease fray handed. over 20" the martial feurt" of the peadguarters of the Gendarmerie, Commissioner of the Skongbat and Woovang Area, it 1 vious that there fo not the s1igheeet basis for doing 0 fu law 1 "According to article 62), of Body and the Government of reement between the Con:
coneetning. the courts inthe Taternational Settlement of Shang Tak Who Courts have to inverigats the' evidence when the offender fa Jsheovered in the Setuement and delivery. jo" demanded. by ate Phovties outside "the." Settlement The. "Gesdarmerie. "Commissioner, froweh he asked for asvnevee_ produced any. evidences for investigation by the Court as whether th offence wth which the Secused_ were changed. wan trUe The appliants-were - handel vet te" the Gendarmerie Commi Stoner for martial trial on the baal nig of "a despateh. This. is une Govbtediy contrary to the aforesaid Benidesr Une appellants have ever been in the inferior of Chine. Tow then could they' have commit: fed' an offence into provinces. Kinmgn ete an" auged by" the Genduriverie' "Commissioner? Nor cul the Gendarmerie Commissioner troduce any evidence n respect 1. The charge int cease. was brought by the Shanghai Municipal Police before the Second Branch of the Kiangsu High Court, " Aceording to Article 1.of the Hogulations Relating to the Enforcement of the Law Governing. the Punishment Persons Who Commit Acts With Tetent to Injure the Republic. of China' and the Instruction. number 4858" of che Ministry of Justice]
Gazette), the Second Branch of the! {see page 1, vl 110 of the Ofeal Kinngsu" High Court has. juriedietion in this. ease as court of the first instance. Now, the Second Branch of the Kiangsu High (Court delivered the accused to the Gendarmerie Conmmissioner of the Shanghat and Woosung Area for fla." This is contrary' to lay.
2." Article "19 of the New Constitution of the Republic of China provides that "except in cordance with law, no person other itary service, by a mill The al Government of China issued order No. 81 on Feb 192% to interfere with the administration lof justice unless expressly provided for by law (nage 982 of the Jadical The appellants are not in tary service and Shanghai is not under, martial law nor is it a s0- called" bandit suppression are: therefore, this case can in no cit-Jcumstances, be turned over to the military authorities for. trial.
Although article 415 of tha! law relating to criminal procedure, provides that rulings concerning Jurisdiction or procedure cannot be appealed before final judgment ex-Jcept when otherwise provided, the Tuling of the Second Branch of the Kiangeu. High Court, does not con-Jcern the question of jurisdiction but question of the constitution of the tribunal trying the case, that is to "The Second Branch ofthe Kiangas High. Court, therefore, wrongfully delivered the "appellants to" the Gendarmerie. Commissioner" for foartia tral instead of assuming Sariadietion in this ence Wherefore, the appeants respec. fully pray thatthe original ruling fe" Eancelled, thatthe application for extradition of the Gendarmerie Commissioner of the Shanghai, and Woosung Area be dismissed, that this case be tried by the Second Branch of the Kiangsu High Court, unless the appellants are delivered to the Swiss Consular authorities of Shanghai for trial, and execution of the original' ruling tayed during the pendency of the appeal, 'Tue Shanghai Chinese Ratepaymare demanding that [the Shanghat Waterworks Ca, should keep its accounts in the Chinese language and a letter to this effect is being sent to the con pany' in ques
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.