The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-16 00:00:00

THIS DAY'S NEWS.

QUEEN'S BENCH.---(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
IN RE CHARLES CARUS WILSON.
In this case Mr. Peacock obtained a rule for a habeas
corpus to bring up the body of the prisoner, who was
imprisoned in the island of Jersey for contempt. Sub-
sequently the Solicitor- General came before the Court,
and obtained a rule to show cause why the writ should
not be quashedfina improvide emanavit, or why a writ of
supersedests should not be issued. The Learned Gentle-
man obtained the rule, on two grounds—the first was that
the Court of Queen's Bench had not power to grant a
writ of habeas corpus which would run into the island of
Jersey ; the second ground was that, even sup-
posing the Court had the power to issue the
writ, it was a matter of discretion whether it
would issue it, and that the present case was such that
the Court would not exercise its power in favour of the
prisoner.
Mr. KELLY, with whom was Mr. Peacock, now showed
cause against the rule. He did not think that the Learned
Solicitor-General would seriously contend the first
point, that the Court had the power of granting the
writ, for there could be no doubt but that the Court had
the power, both by statute and by the common law. The
statutes of the 31st of Charles 11., ch. 2, sec. 10, and the
statute of the 56th of George In., ch. 100, proved be-
yond question that the Court had power to issue a writ
into any part of England and Wales, Berwick-on-Tweed,
or the islands of Jersey and Guernsey. The second
statute extended the power of the Court over matters
which were not criminal. The only doubt ever
expressed on the subject was to be found in suggestions
thrown out in argument, but there was no decision or
opinion to be found expressed by any judge, to the effect
that at common law a writ of habeas corpus did not lie
into the islands of Jersey and Guernsey. On the con-
trary, there were precedents for the issuing of such
writs. The Learned Gentleman then quoted Lord Hale
and other authorities, to show the power of the Court.
In 2d Barrow, p. 834, Lord Mansfield said that there
could be no doubt as to- the power of the Costrt,
where the place was under the subjection of
the Crowe:. Some doubts had been suggested
whether the islands of Jersey and Guernsey
were within the operation of a British Act of Parliament;
but whatever might be the opinion of the people of Jersey
on this subject, the Court of Queen's Bench here had no
discretion but to obey the Act of Parliament, whatever
it enjoined. With regard to the _second ground, as to
the discretion of tne Court, he apprehended that it was
an abuse of the word " discretion' to say that the Court
could exercise it. It was impossible to fall into a greater
mistake than to say it was matter of di:cretion at all.
When it was said, in the case of Sir J. C. Hobhouse,
that it was matter of discretion, the meaning was
that the writ would not issue at the mere instance of
Counsel unsupported by affidavit. But where there was
an affidavit showing probable cause that the prisoner
was unlawfully imprisoned, the issuing of the writ was
matter of right and not of discretion. It was a matter
of right to the subject, and of imperative duty in the
Court to issue the writ. It was not a matter of course,
that as it was not to issue upon mere application by
Counsel, but upon probable cause shown, the
Court had no discretion but to issue the writ.
In this case Mr Charles Carus Wilson, who
was born in England, and a subject of the Queen, had
been seized by the Deputy Viscount of Jersey on the
23d of September and lodged in prison, which impri-
sonment be swears he believes to be illegal. On the 23d
and 24th he asked for a copy of the warrant for his
detention, and the gaoler, John Cantilch, told him he
had nothing of the kind to give him. On the 29th of
September a paper was brought into his cell, in which
it was stated that he was condemned to pay a fine of
101., and was to make an apology to the Court, and was
to be confined till then. The Learned Gentle
man argued that this warrant was bad on
several grounds, the principal of which was, that
there was no means pointed out by which he could ever
obtain his liberty, because he was to be kept in prison
till he made an apology, and how was he to make the
apology ? Who was to accept it from him ? The gaoler
was net appointed to receive it, nor was he bound to
transmit it. He, therefore, contended that there was
sufficient ground before the Court to show that this
gentleman was illegally imprisoned ; and he therefore
hoped the Court would set aside the rule with costs, and
then the merhs of the question, which was one of im-
portance, would be fully discussed when the party was
brought before the Court.
Mr. PEACOCK followed on the same side, and was pro-
ceeding when we went to press.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.

HILLS V. KENDALL.
This case was resumed this morning, and the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

TIIE REGISTRATION APPEALS.

The Court this morning proceeded to take the ap-
peals from the Revising Barristers which were not gone
through last session.

ECKERSLEY V. BARKER.

This was an appeal from the decision of the Revising
Barrister for South Lancashire, who had allowed the
claim of a person whose qualification 46 for a cottage in
Tinker's-lune, Hollingsworth, near Manchester," was
objected to on the ground of insufficient descriprion.

The LORD t:HIEF JUSTICE gave now the judgment of
the Cowl in fav,,ur of the vote and the barrister's deci-
sion. His Lordship observed that the number of a house
in a street was a necessary designation ; but it could not
be necessary to give a number to every house iu a lane or
upon a common.