The defence put up was that the offence was committed in the French Concession, where accused were arrested, and that, according to the Provisional Rules of the Internation~ fal Settlement and the French Consular Body on June 10, 1902, this Court had' no jurisdiction over th
al Rules which is still in force by Article 2 of the virtue of the exchange notes in eon~ nection with the Agreement for the Rendition of the Mixed Court reads.
"In criminal eases where. for eigners are not concerned and in all Police cases against Chinese re~ sidents in the Settlement, the Mixed Court of the Settlement in which the crime or contravention has been. committed is alone competent."
It is quite obvious that this article refers to cases in which Chinese are: alone concerned. It is true that int this ease both complainant and ac~ cused are foreigners without. extra territorial rights like some other foreigners, but it is not true to say that the "foreigner" even in those days when the Provisional Rules were drawn'
necessarily means a person with extraterritorial rights. There have been, for instance, a great many. nationals of non-treaty Powers in Shanghai and elsewhere, who were subject to Chinese jurisdiction, and there were also recognized foreigners: who were and are regularly brought. before this Court. The non-extratertorial character of the nationals, of a certain number of Powers does. not make them Chinese. Moreover, although accused were arrested in the French Settlement, the offence was committed already on March 14, 1928, when complainant was still residing at Avenue Haig, in the International Settlement. The act was completed on that date when the money was delivered to accused by complainant. The subsequent traps, which led to the arrest of accused, can only be considered as the continuous act of the offence, and, deed, was only a measure taken by the police for verifying the com= plaint made by Krivoss, The Complainant's Trap The obtaining of the farther sum of Tls. 350 on the evening of the 24th in fact cannot be regarded in aw as having committed another and fresh offence, because it was only a trap, and complainant was only trapping them. This, of course, does not apply tg the charge against Rosenbaum, who impersonated 2 Customs officer. An offence is com-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.