The History of Tasmania (Vol. 1&2). John West

Чтение книги онлайн.

      SECTION V

       Table of Contents

      Under the former act, the attorney general could refuse to file a bill, and exercised this discretion in a case of libel. The new law authorised the court to permit an information to be exhibited by any person, and the attorney general was bound to indict, except in felony or capital prosecutions. Mr. Jennings, a solicitor, claimed the interference of the court against the attorney general, Mr. Montagu. Savery, who was transported for forgery, was sued for a debt; but Mr. Montagu, who had been a passenger with the debtor's wife, and felt interested in his welfare, stayed proceedings by verbal guarantee. When Jennings attempted to enforce the agreement, Montagu replied that he was more to be affected by the sun than the wind; and added, "I know how to defend myself against a person ten times more able or wicked than yourself." The judge decided that the attorney general was not bound to sign a bill of indictment against, or to prosecute himself.

      The indemnity due on a returned bill of exchange was decided by the court (1826), on a friendly suit, Cartwright v. Mulgrave, at the expense of the merchants. It was deemed proper to give a high compensation, both to solace for disappointment, and discourage a careless issue of bills. The plaintiff paid £112 currency for £100 sterling, calculating that £120 currency would be required in London for the £100 sterling. The assessors fixed 25 per cent. to cover all losses, and the sum has been allowed by the supreme court on all similar cases to this day.

      Captain Dillon, of the Research, East India Company's ship, the discoverer of the relics of La Perouse, visited Hobart Town. He was prosecuted for assault and false imprisonment by Dr. Tytler, a gentleman commissioned by the Asiatic Society to conduct the scientific enquiries the voyage might favor. He was seized, confined to his cabin, threatened with the lash, and guarded by New Zealand savages, among whom were two, called by Dillon Prince Brian Boru, and his Excellency Morgan M'Murrah, who espoused the quarrel of the captain, and offered to grill and eat the unfortunate physician. The jealousy and violence of Dillon strongly indicated insanity, and Dr. Tytler represented his fears to the second in command. This opinion became known to the captain, and led to the assault and imprisonment, from which the doctor was released by a writ of habeas corpus. The chief justice, in pronouncing judgment, explained the absolute power and stringent responsibility of a captain in the management of his company, and sentenced Dillon to fine and imprisonment: the latter was remitted, in consideration of his enterprise.

      The public treasury was robbed of £1,400 (1827). The thieves entered at night, while the sentinel was on guard, and the rifled chest was found hidden under a tomb in the adjacent burial ground. Three persons, and the sentinel, were tried for the offence; but on the second day, the crown prosecutor was not in his place. This truant lawyer was enjoying a breakfast, while the court and prisoners were watching the door of entrance. The patience of the judge gave way, and he directed a verdict of "not guilty" to be entered. The crown relieved the treasurer from his responsibility for the loss.

      The case of Isaac (Ikey) Solomon, a noted receiver, occasioned a long discussion of great colonial interest. This man having been committed for trial, escaped from Newgate; but his wife, implicated in the same transaction, was transported. A short time after, he appeared in Van Diemen's Land, under the name of Sloman, and applied for his wife as an assigned servant: to this the governor consented, but transmitted to England an account of his presence. Towards the close of 1829, a letter, enclosing an affidavit of Mr. Wontner, the governor of Newgate, was addressed by the secretary of state to the governor, directing the arrest of the fugitive. A consultation was held at the secretary's office, to which Mr. Gellibrand was invited, who declared that the instruments forwarded were insufficient. A warrant, however, was issued for Solomon's capture, and he was lodged in gaol. On the application of Mr. Gellibrand, the supreme court granted a writ of habeas corpus, and the question arose whether a colonial secretary had power to act under instructions from the secretary of state, and without examination transmit a person, on a presumption of guilt, over half the globe. The judge admitted that the boasted liberty of the subject would be a delusion, were such powers vested in the local authorities. After a lengthened research and repeated hearing, he was unable to find a precedent, or to solve the difficulty of СКАЧАТЬ