Laurence McDermott, - Appellant; The Hon. Joseph Beaumont, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Guiana, and the Hon. Robert Crosby Beete, first Puisne Judge, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 1868 |
| Date | 01 December 1868 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 16 E.R. 590
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CIVIL JUSTICE OF BRITISH GUIANA.
Mews' Dig. tit. Colony; I. General Principles; 4. Judges and Courts; II. Particular Colonies; 3 British Guiana; III. Appeals to Privy Council; 1. When an appeal lies generally. S.C. L.R. 2 P.C. 341; 38 L.J. P.C. 1; 20 L.T. 47; 17 W.R. 352. See Rainy v. Sierra Leone (Justices of), 1852-53, 8 Moo. P.C. 47; In re Ramsay 1870, L.R, 3 P.C. 434; 7 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 263: Surendranath Banerjea. v. Bengal (Chief Justice, etc., of), 1883, L.R. 10 Ind. App. 180; and cases collected in note to Smith v. Sierra Leone (Justices of), 1841, 3 Moo. P.C. at p. 368. See also S.C. sub nom., In re M'Dermott, 4 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 110, and note thereto.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CIVIL JUSTICE OF BRITISH GUIANA. LAURENCE McDERMOTT -Appellant; The Hon. JOSEPH BEAUMONT, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Guiana, and the Hon. ROBERT CROSBY BEETE, first Puisne Judge,-Respondents * [Dec. 1, 1868]. Leave having been given by the Judicial Committee (on an ex parte application) to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, against an Order of commitment for contempt, and a judgment refusing leave to appeal from such Order, made by the Supreme Court of Civil Justice of British Guiana; without prejudice to the question of the competency of Her Majesty to entertain an appeal from an Order of commitment made by a Court of Record inflicting punishment by * Present: Lord Chelmsford, the Lord Justice Wood, Sir James William Colvile and Sir Edward Vaughan Williams. 590 M'DERMOTT V. BRITISH GUIANA (JUDGES of) [1868] V MOORE N.S., 467 fine or imprisonment for contempt; the Appellant objected, inter alia, that the Supreme Court of Civil Justice in British Guiana was not a Court of Record, and had no such power of committing as had been exercised. The Judicial Committee, considering the question of jurisdiction a preliminary question, limited the argument to that point: and upon a review of the Orders in Council and Ordinances establishing the Civil and Criminal Courts in British Guiana was of opinion, (1) that the Supreme Court of Civil Justice of that Colony was constituted a Court of Record, and had power to commit for contempt, and (2) that the exercise of such a power being discretionary was not the subject of appeal, and that the leave given to appeal therefrom ought not to have been granted. In this case the appeal was, by special leave (see case reported nom,. In re McDermott, 4 Moore's P.C. Cases (N.S.), 110, S.C.; Law Rep. 1 P.O., 260), brought from an Order of the Supreme Court of Civil Justice of British Guiana, dated the 13th of April, [467] 1866, whereby it was adjudged that the Appellant had committed a contempt of that Court, and it was ordered, that for such contempt the Appellant be imprisoned for the term of six months, or until he should be sooner discharged by the further Order of the Court. The contempt of Court, in respect of which such Order was made, consisted of the publication by the Appellant, of two articles in a Newspaper, published at George Town, Demerara, called the Colonist, on the 29th of March, 1866, and the 5th of April, 1866, respectively. On the 2nd of April, 1866, the Appellant was, by an Order signed by the Chief Justice of the Court, summoned personally to attend the Court on the 4th, to shew cause why an attachment should not issue against him for the contempt of Court by the publication of the article of the 29th of March, 1866. On the 4th of April, 1866, the Appellant, in pursuance of the above Order, personally attended the Court, when it was further ordered by the Court, that he should attend the Court at its sitting on the Friday then next (the 6th), there to answer in respect of the contempt alleged against him. On that day the Appellant again appeared, in pursuance of the last-mentioned Order of the 4th, and Counsel shewed .[468] cause on his behalf, when the Court, taking notice that since the 4th, namely, on the 5th of April, the Appellant had committed a further contempt of Court, by the publication of the article of that date in the Golowist Newspaper, it was ordered by the Court, that the Appellant should attend the Court at its sittings on Tuesday then next, the 10th, and should then further answer, as well for the contempt alleged against him in the aforesaid Orders mentioned, as for such further contempt as was then alleged in respect of the article published on the 5th of April. On the 10th the Appellant appeared personally in Court, in obedience to the Order of the Court made on the 6th of April. Being called on to shew cause, the Appellant's Counsel objected and declined so to do, alleging that such Order was irregular and ought not to be proceeded on, but that the Court ought, without reference thereto, to adjudicate on and dispose of the matters alleged against the Appellant, and as to which he was called on to shew cause by the before-mentioned Orders of the 2nd and 4th of April. The Court having considered the objection, overruled it, and held, that the Order of the 6th of April was regular, and that the Appellant was bound to shew cause as thereby directed; and further, his Counsel objected to the Order being proceeded upon, inasmuch as it was pronounced ore tenus, and no minute or written copy had been served upon him; but the Court held, that the Appellant having been present personally and by his Counsel in Court when such Order was made, that it was not necessary to serve him with any minute or copy thereof; and intimated, that if he or his Counsel desired to be further advised of the same, or the [469] terms or effect thereof, the Court would allow a further time to shew cause thereunder. The Appellant's Counsel having, in the circumstances, declined to shew cause, Mr. Ross, as the Informant of the Court in the matter, was heard in answer to what was alleged on behalf of the Appellant on the 6th of April. The Appellant's Counsel declined to reply, whereupon the Court reserved its decision until the Friday then next, the 13th of April, and ordered the Appellant to appear personally at the sitting of the Court on that day, intimating that notwithstanding his previous refusal to shew cause, they would allow him to do so before pronouncing their decision. 591 V MOORE N.S., 470 M'DERMOTT V. BRITISH GUIANA (JUDGES OF) [1868] On the 13th of April, the Court asked the Appellant's Counsel whether he desired to shew cause in the matter, when, considering the whole proceeding irregular and illegal, he declined, whereupon the Court adjudged and determined that the Appellant had committed a high contempt of the Court by having printed and published in the Colonist Newspaper of the 29th of March and 5th of April, the articles before mentioned, such articles respectively " containing divers matters scandalously reflecting upon His Honour James Crosby, one of the Judges of the Court, and unjustly reflecting upon Mr. Ross, the Informant of the Court, therein tending to defame and obstruct the administration of justice," and ordered that for such contempts the Appellant be imprisoned for the term of six calendar months, to be computed from the date of the Order (13th of April, 1866), or until he should be sooner discharged by the further Order of the Court. The Appellant was thereupon delivered into the custody of the Keeper of Her Majesty's gaol at George Town, under a [470] warrant of commitment, dated the 13th of April, 1866. He afterwards, on the 14th of April, petitioned the Court for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Her Privy Council from the Order. The Court, however, on the 4th of May, 1866, refused to grant leave. In consequence, the Appellant, on the 21st of October, 1866, presented a petition to Her Majesty in Council, praying for leave to appeal against the Order of the 13th of April, 1866, and also the judgment of the 4th of May, 1866, refusing leave to appeal. The Judicial Committee, on the hearing of the petition on the 3rd of November, 1866, reported as their opinion, that leave ought to be granted to the Appellant to enter into and prosecute his appeal against the Order of the 13th of April, 1866, and from the judgment of the Court of the 4th of May, 1866, without prejudice to the question of the competency of Her Majesty in Council to entertain an appeal from an Order of a Court of Record inflicting punishment by fine or imprisonment for a contempt of Court, which question was to be open to argument on the hearing of the appeal; and that a copy of the Order in Council ought to be served on the Judges of the Supreme Court of British Guiana, with leave to put in their answer to the appeal. By an Order in Council, Her Majesty was pleased to approve of such Report, and to order as therein recommended. A copy of the Order in Council was served on the Judges of the Supreme Court, who considered, as recorded on a minute of the Court, that they ought not to appear or act as Respondents in the matter, unless the Lords of Her Majesty's Council should [471] deem it fit and desirable they should do so, for the better and more effectual elucidation and determination of any matter which might be brought into question before their Lordships; or unless any statement should be made in the petition or the case on appeal lodged by the Appellant, in pursuance of the liberty given by the above Order in Council, which might make it incumbent on the Judges of the Supreme Court to guard against any errors therein. On the 22nd of June, 1867, the Judicial Committee appointed the hearing of the appeal for the sittings after Michaelmas Term, 1867, and expressed an opinion, that it was desirable that when the question came on to be argued, some proper party should be present representing the Crown, or the Judges of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Petition of Thomas Kennedy Ramsay
... ... 100 ON PETITION FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, LOWER CANADA.In the Matter of ... Colony, II. Particular Colonies, 4. British North America.-Contempt of Court. S.C. L.R. 3 ... IV. c. 41, s. 4. * Present: Sir Robert Phillimore (Judge of the Admiralty Court), the rd Justice James, and the Lord Justice Mellish. 100 RAMSAY ... 's Bench, but that Court, consisting of the Chief Justice Duval, and the Justices Aylwin, Badgley, ... IV. c. 41. In the recent case, McDermott's (4 Moore's P.C. -Cases (N.S.), 110; S.C. Law ... Counsel in behalf of the Petitioner (The Hon. Mr. Justice Drummond not having appeared or ... ...