The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-07 00:00:00

LAW INT.

'his day.

.This Day,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and Black

burn, Mellor, and Sties.)

631

ICOi
39i 40

fll 101

Lau 99i

THE CONTEMPT CASE IN THE HOUSE
OF KEYS.
IN RE JAMES DROWN.

In this case Mr Welsby had obtained a rule to show cause
why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue directed to the
keeper of the prison in the Isle of Man to bring up the body
of Janes Brown, the proprietor and publisher of the _lsle of
Man Times, who had been convicted for contempt under a
warrant and judgment of the House of Keys, and sentenced
to six months' imprisonment, for publishing a certain libel
in the proceeding of certain members of that house, in rela-
tion to the Towns' Commissioners. The House of Keys is
the house of Legislation of the island, and is a perpetual
body acting under the Lieutenant-Governor of the Island.
Mr. Mellish, Q.C., on the part of the authorities, showed
cause against the rule, and raised a preliminary objection
under the 25th and 20th of Vic., cap. 20, which act was
passed to prevent a writ of habeas corpus being issued by
this court into any foi eign dominion, and which was passed
in consequence of Crawford's (the Canada) case. The
learned counsel contended that the House of Keys, sitting
in its judicial authority, had power to commit, and were so
sitting at the time of the committal of the applicant Brown,
and that this court had no right to interfere with its deci-
sion by issuing a habeas corpus.

The court, without hearing the reply, was unanimously
of opinion that the rule ought to be made absolute and the
writ to issue, as the House of Keys had not the power to
imprison under the circumstances of the case,

The counsel on the other side said there was no occasion
for the issuing of the writ, as on the decision of the court
becoming known Brown would at once be liberated, thus
avoiding the necessity of its being brought before their lord-
ships for that purpose.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn

IN RE CLARKE.

In this case an arrangement had been made for a private
meeting, but the bankrupt did not appear. A surgical
certificate was tendered that he had met with an accident
and could not attend, and the wile and mother of the bank-
rupt were present to certify that such was the fact.
Mr. R. Griffith objected to the admissability of the cer-
tificate as evidence,
His Honour said that the only course was, if the sum-
mons had been personally served, to issue a warrant, and
then it would be ascertained whether there was any truth
in the statement.
Mr. Griffith said that the bankrupt had not been abso-
lutely served, but the mother took the summons, and ad-
mitted that she had given it to the bankrupt—the bankrupt
avoided personal service.
His Honour said that another summons must be served,
if possible, and if it could not, a warrant would be served.
IN RE BUITII.

In this case an argument arose on the application of Mr.
Smith, of Bo'grave-wharf, Pimlico, who had been arrested
after having received a certificate from the Registrar of the
due execution of a deed under the 198 section of the Act
'Business don, 1861.

1031 21 S

1021 i

g 5

His Honour now held that he had no power to release.
It was different from an application under the 112th sec-
tion of the old act, which gave the Court a discretionary
power. In the case of Colonel Waugh, there was
a great doubt whether this Court had a power
to discharge as against the order of the superior court, but
in this case the court above had been applied to, and had
up to the present time upheld the proceedings of its own
court, His Honour therefore refused to order the release,
but would, as the liberty of the subjeot was so important,
afford an opportunity for appeal, and fix the amount of
deposit at the lowest possible amount, £lO.
It was intimated that the appeal would be entered in due
course, but, in the meantime, Mr. Smith must remain in
custody.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

THAMES.
ATTEMPTED SUICIDE.—DISTEESSING CASE.--Margaret
Cotton, a very respectable young woman, who has been in
good situations, was brought up, on remand, before Mr.
Partridge, charged with attempting self-destruction.
A few mornings Since the prisoner went to the banks of
the Lea Cut, in Limehouse, and plunged into the water.
She would have been drowned but for the tact and bravery
exhibited by a man named James Park, of No. 9. Flower's-
lane, Stainsby-road, Limehouse, who got into the water
and held her until further assistance was rendered. She
was quite exhausted when taken out of the canal, and
was removed to the station• house in Poplar, where police-
sergeant Bridgland, No 65 K, succeeded in recovering her,
and after providingher with dry clothing,sent her to the Step-
ney Union, at Bromley. Her recovery soon followed, and
she was brought before Mr. Partridge on Monday, and re-
manded. Her statement was a very distressing one. She
had been seduced by a man named Alesender Mamoth, a
native of Hungary, who is well known at this court, and
who turned out to be married. He laughed at her, and
treated her with scorn, and she resolved that her life and
her miseries should end together, and was very sorry that
she had not accomplished her purpose: She now appeared in
a better frame of mind, and Mr. Partridge read a letter he
had received from the Rev. Mr. Jephson, the: chaplain of
the Clerkenwell House of Detention, which stated that the
prisoner had expressed great penitence, and had promised
not to repeat the attempt on her life. Mr. Flowers, the
principal of an excellent Christian Institution in Silver-
street, Stepney, had been kind enough to interfere in this
case, and he thought the best thing would be to send her to
a refuge. He should discharge her, and hand her over to
the care of Mr. Flowers, who would provide her with an
asylum

DARING ROBBERY ON BOARD A BARGE.—Wm. Jones,
a lad employed about the barges on the river, was charged
with stealing 12 bottles of beer.

It appeared that a watchman, named Edward Cole, in the
service of the East and West India Dock Company, stopped
the prisoner as he was about to leave the East India Dock
at the river entrance, and asked him if he had anything
about him, to which the lad saucily answered "Nothing.
What do you think I have got in my pockets " The
watchman dragged the prisoner into his box and took from
each of his trousers pockets a bottle of ale, and from his
breast pocket.a third bottle of ale. They were sealed for
exportation. The prisoner said he found the three bottles
of ale on the quay, but he afterwards told another dock
watchman that he found them in a dust bin. He was
asked why he came into the dock, and he made an absurd
reply. It was subsquently discovered that a case of bottled
ale on board the barque Martha in the dock had been
broken open and 12 bottles of ale taken out. The three
bottles taken from the prisoner were a portion of them. The
barge was owned by a lighterman named Perkins, who was
in chargo of the ales for shipment.
Tho prisoner, who began crying, said ho was guilty, and
he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment and hard
labour in the House of Correction.