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

THE SUN, IiONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 7, 1864.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and Justices Black •

burn, Mellor, and Shee.)

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

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 James Brown, the proprietor and publisher of the isle of
Alan 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 pert of the authorities, showed
cause against the rule, and raised a preliminary objection
under the 25th and 26th of Vic., cap. 20, which act was
passed to prevent a writ of habeas corpus being issued by
this court into any foreign 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 mec with an accident
and could not attend, and the wile and mother of the bank-
rupt were present to certify that such was thq fact.

Mr. E. Griffith objected to the admissability of the cer

ificate 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. Grifd'h said that the bankrupt had not been abso.
lutely served, but the mother took the summons, and ad.
mated that she had given it to the bankrupt—the bankrup
avoided personal service.

His Honour said that another summons must be served
f possible, and if it could not, a warrant would be served.

IN RE 83IITli.

In this case an argument arose on the application of Mr.
Smith, of Belgrave-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
1861.

His Honour now held that ho had no power to release,
t 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 clue
course, but, in the meantime, Mr. Smith must remain in
custody.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Dan

THAMES.