EX PARTE LANE. 37 �to the records of the court showing that the commissioner was authorized to issue the warrant. Hence, I think it should appear that the person taking the complaint and issu- ing the warrant is not only a commissioner of the court, but is one authorized to act in extradition cases, I should be loth, however, to hold that the proceedings were void upon this account, since I am by no means certain but that the court, upon an application for discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus, would be bound to take judicial notice of the fact that the commissioner had been appointed for this purpose. If a third person had been indicted for resisting a marshal in the execution of this warrant, I should have no doubt that the decision of Justice Curtis would apply, and that it would b© necessary to make a more particular averment in the indict- ment. �Without expressing a more decided opinion upon the eflfect of the omission in this case, I proceed to the consideration of the next objection, �2. That although the complaint charges that said Lane committed the crime of forgery, and of uttering forged paper, at Eondeau, in the province of Ontario, there is nowhere in the proceedings any averment or proof that the province of Ontario is within the territorial domain of Great Britain. There is nothing in this objection. Undoubtedly, it should be averred and proved that the town within which the offence is cbarged to have been committed is within the province of Ontario ; but I think the court may take judicial notice of the fact that this province is a British possession. There has been a good deal of discussion in the books as to what facts may be within the judical cognizance, but I think a court may safely take notice of such facts as are within the knowl- edge of every intelligent person in the community, There is scarcely a sehool-boy in the state who does not know that the great dominion that lies upon the other side of the Detroit river is a part of her majesty's possessions, and it is asking too much of a judge to shut his eyes to this fact. Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324, 342; The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 374. ��� �
