The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-29 00:00:00

tirl) Wbitton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before LJrd Chief Justice DzNmAN, and

a full Court.)

JrItiItDICTION OF COURTS IN THE cHANNRL ISLANDS.
Ir. CROWDER applied 'to this Court for the discharge of
Brennan and Henry Gallan, two lads who had been
sentenced to traneportatien by the Royal Court of Jersey for
the period of seven years, on the ground that on the face of
the return the Court possessed no authority to pass such a
sentence. The Learned Counsel stated that the two boys
bad been tried before the Royal Court of Jersey. for breaking
into a baker's shop in the town of St. Helier, in that island,
a id stealing a quantity of sweetcake therefrom. The sentence
was passed in the usual form, namely, that the prisoners should
be transported to such place beyond the seas as her Majesty
or her Privy Council should direct and appoint, and the pri-
setters were re-conveyed to prison. Sir George Grey after-
wards sept his warrant for the removal of the prisoners to
this country, and they were placed in custody in the Peni-
tentiary at Milbank. He had now to submit to their Lord-
ships that, on the face of the return made there was no com-
petent authority in the island of Jersey to sentence any
parties to transportation. He contended that, where sen-
tence of this kind was passed in any foreign countries, it
was necessary that it should be shown on the face
.of
the return that a proper authority exted to inflict
such a sentence. No such authority appearedis on the face of
this return; and not only was it not shown that suc
it
h
authority really did exist, but there was every proof that
did net exist. A minute of Council had been framed with
reference to the disposal of prisoners who should have been
sentenced to transportation in these islands; but that
minute did not, nor could not constitute any authority to
pass sentence. It merely pre-supposed the existence of such
authority at the time that the minute was framed. The
right to pass sentence of transportation did not exist by
common law,—it was only conferred upon judges by
Act of Parliament ; and, therefore, unless it was
passed under such Act of Parliament it was not
only invalid, but against the law. Not one of
the Acts which had been passed with reference
to this punishment had in any way any application
to the courts in this island; nor even under the ancient laws,
upon which the island was formerly regulated, did any such
authority exist. Any British subject who was committed to
custody, in any gaol or prison, had surely the right of know-
ing upon what law or authority he was detained. It was not
incumbent upon him to show that there was no authority to
detain him, but it was incumbent upon those who deprived
him of bis liberty to show that they had a legal title to do
so. No such right was shown on the part of the Baillie of
the Royal Court of Jersey, and therefore as there was no
means of reversing the judgment, the prisoners were entitled to
their discharge: The Learned Counsel then proceeded to cite
at some length- several authorities in support of his view of
the case. - • -
Mr. Lug; followed upon the same side, and contended
that upon the face of such a return sufficient should be stated
to enable the person detained, in case he should be unjustly de-
tinned, to found an action upon it. In this case the return
was perfectly correct in the fact which it stated as to the
sentence passed, but was silent as to the authority given to
pass such a sentence, so that parties accused, although sen-
tenced by an authority which was not competent to pass
sentence, could found no objection upon the return, inasmuch
as the facts stated in it were perfectly true. Their Lordships
were asked to infer the authority of the Royal Court of Jer-
sey to pass sentence, because they had actually passed it.
Such a popesition would be a most dangerous one, if allowed
to be valid.
The ArToRNET-GENERAL contended that the Court could
not interfere with the judgment which had already been
passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, although the
parties accused might be within their jurisdiction. Sup •
posy the case of a person sentenced to banishment from
Scotland, and while being removed for the execution of that
sentence the vessel in which he was was wrecked within the
jurisdiction of their court, having been sentenced by a court
of competent jurisdiction, they could not interfere legally
They could not order him to be remitted to the jurisdiction of
the Court which sentenced him,nor could they discharge him
with the sentence hanging over him. The only course that

could be pursued with regard to the prisoner' would be to

show respect to the judgment passed upon him. If a person
were sentenced in England, and ordered to be imprisoned in
the county of Middlesex, that would not render his detention
in the county of Essex an illegal one. A Court, having a
competent jurisdiction to pass sentence, and the prisoner who
had received that sentence having been brought over to this
country, the absence of any statement as to the authority of
the Court to pass sentence, upon the face of the return, ought
not and could not constitute any right on the part of this
Court to interfere with the sentence.
Tile SOLICITOR• GCRERAL said, that if this precedent were
admitted, there would exist a necessity for inquiring into
the cases of many Scotch prisoners who were detained in
this country under sentence of the Courts of Scotland. The
only method in which any such case could be brought under
the notice of the Legislature was by petition to the Queen
in Council ; and, in the present case, where sentence had
been passed by a competent Court, the same appeal, namely,
by petition to the Queen in Council, must be adopted.
Under such circumstances, this Court would establish a very
injurious precedent if it allowed the present application, and
interfered with the sentence.
Mr. HILL addressed the Court upon the same side. He

contended that by the sentence passed the prisoners were to
be transported beyond the seas to such place as her Majesty
should appoint. The prisoners "were detained in Jersey until
that pleasure was made known. The discretionary power
was vested entirely in the Crown, and their detention any-
where until that pleasure was made known was merely a part
of the sentence passed. A writ of habeas corpus might just
as well apply in the case of a prisoner whose ultimate desti-
nation was not named for a long time after his sentence of
transportation. His detention in that case, as well as in the
prt,ient one, was therery. a-portion of the execution of the
- -

r. %Vann'sGrow having been heard upon the same side,
Mr. CRoWDER, in reply, urged that his objection with re
ference to the powerof the Court of Jersy to pass sentence of
transportation had not'been answered.
31r. Justice Paramus said that the question was not one
'of error as to the judgment; it turned upon the power of de-
taining the prisoners in this country.
Mr. CROWDER said, .that under any circumstances his
Learned Friend had shown no authority by which these pri-
soners could be detained in this country under a sentence
pa=sed by the foreign Court of Jersey, the laws of which.were
unknown to ibis country, and also unrecognised. The sen-
tence was passed under the laws of Jersey, and the prisoner
was found in this country, and how could any right to detain
him be shown ? The sentence of transportation was un-
known to the law unless created by Act of Parliament,
and it had not been so created in Jersey. If a pri-
:soner were brought before their Lordship under a
sentence which condemned him to lose a lunb, such a
sentence not being known to the laws of this country, and
being passed by a foreign court, would not be recognised, and
the person would not be legally detained in this country.
The Ace, sth of Geo. IV., provided that when any sentence
of transportation was passed by any court out of the United
Kingdom, and within the limits of her Majesty's dominions,
the prisoner should be sent over to England to be
transported. His Learned Friend had laid great
stress upon this provision, but if there was no
authority in the Royal Court of Jersey to pass sen-
tence of transportation, that Act could not apply. His
Learned Friend the Attorney-General had assumed that the
Court of Jersey possessed that authority, and had confined
his arguments to the question as to the legality of the cus-
tody in this country. That was literally an assumption of
the whole question; for if it should be found that the Court
bad oo jurisdiction, the Act could not apply. On these
gr.euids he submitted to their Lordships, that the Court
ought to entertain this application. If the Court possessed
the power they ought to have stated it upon the face of the
return, and as they had not done so, that return was invalid,
and constituted no authority to hold the parties in custody in
this country.
There Lordships reserved their judgment.
RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP vi.

SAIASBURY AND YROVIL, AND EXETER,
YEOVIL, AND DORCHESTER.
Mr. Thytherleigb, merchant and banker, of Exeter, was
examined by Mr. RowE on behalf of the promoters of these
lines, and gave it as his opinion that it was desirable to have
a narrow gauge line direct from Exeter to London, and that
when such a line was completed there could be no doubt
but that branches affording accommodation to the smaller
towns in the neighbourhood of Exeter would be constructed.
Mr. Pope, farmer and grazier, of Beaminster, thought that
the proposed lines would afford him great facilities for the
conveyance of his live and fat stock to Salisbury, London,
and the south-east coast.
Captain Buller, tithe and copyhold commissioner, anti ma-
gistrate of the county of Devon, and owner of considerable
property at Wimple, in the neighbourhood of Exeter, was
also called to give evidence in support of the.proposed line.
D. B. Davey, merchant of Topsham, also deposed to the
beneficial effect to be derived from the construction of the
direct route to Exeter.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till twelve to-
morrow.