The Petition of Thomas Kennedy Ramsay

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date26 November 1870
Date26 November 1870
CourtPrivy Council

English Reports Citation: 17 E.R. 100

ON PETITION FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, LOWER CANADA.

In the Matter of the Petition of Thomas Kennedy Ramsay 1

Mews' Dig. tit. Barrister, 6. Misconduct of Counsel; tit. Colony, II. Particular Colonies, 4. British North America.-Contempt of Court. S.C. L.R. 3 P.C. 427. See Rainy v. Sierra, Leone (Justices of), 1852-53, 8 Moo. P.C. 47, and note thereto at p. 63.

[263] ON PETITION FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, LOWER CANADA. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS KENNEDY RAMSAY * [Nov. 26, 1870]. Whether an appeal lies to the Queen in Council against a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in Lower Canada, quashing a writ of Error against an Order of the Court of Queen's Bench on the Crown side, fining and ordering an attachment against a Counsel for an alleged contempt of Court-quaere. Semble, where a fine is imposed, the remedy is to petition the Crown for a reference to the Judicial Committee, under the Statute, 3rd and 4th Will. IV. c. 41, s. 4. * Present: Sir Robert Phillimore (Judge of the Admiralty Court), the Lord Justice James, and the Lord Justice Mellish. 100 RAMSAY (IN RE) [l 870] VII MOORE N.S., 264 A Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench in Lower Canada, whilst sitting alone in the exercise of the Criminal jurisdiction, has, under the authority conferred on him by section 72 of ch. 77 of the Consolidated Statutes of" Canada, no power to pronounce a Counsel in contempt for publishing two Letters reflecting upon the conduct of such Judge, or to impose a fine. The facts and circumstances of the case, as they appeared on the petition, were, in substance, as follows: - The Petitioner was a Queen's Counsel practising at Montreal, in the Province of Lower Canada, and for about three years previously he had conducted the Crown business before the Court of Queen's Bench, for and by the appointment of the Attorney-General of Lower Canada. On the 24th of August, 1866, the Petitioner appeared before Mr. Justice Drum-mond, one of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada, to oppose, on behalf of the Attorney-General, an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus made by [264] Counsel on the part of a Prisoner named Lamirande, who had been arrested under the provisions of the Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and France for an alleged Forgery said to have been committed at Poictiers, in France. The offence of which Lamirande was alleged to have been guilty, was that of making false entries in the Books of a Bank at Poictiers, and it appeared that this offence was Forgery by the law of France. It was contended, that it was not Forgery by the law of Great Britain, and therefore, that the offence was not within the Treaty. Mr. Justice Drummond adjourned the application. Being pressed the same evening by the Counsel for Lamirande, who attended at Mr. Justice Drummond's House for the purpose, to issue the writ, lest the Prisoner should be taken away in the meantime, the learned Judge still declined to issue the writ, but gave the Gaoler a written order not to part with Lamirande until he should have given a decision upon the application for a Habeas Corpus. After the Judge had left such Order with the Gaoler, the French Police Officers arrived at the gaol with the Governor-General's warrant in proper form and properly authenticated. The Gaoler thereupon handed over the Prisoner to the French Police Officer named in the warrant, and before the next morning that Officer had removed the Prisoner out of the Canadian jurisdiction. The Petitioner stated, that he had nothing whatever to do with the removal of the Prisoner. On the contrary, when the matter of the writ was under discussion before the Judge on the previous afternoon, the Counsel for the Prisoner had made an observation to the effect that there was danger of the Prisoner [265] being " kidnapped " before the morning, whereupon the Petitioner replied, that the only danger he was in was, that before the morning the French authorities might arrive with the proper authority for taking him away, in which case, the Petitioner observed, the Gaoler would be bound to give him up. The Petitioner had no control over the proceedings of the prosecution or of the French Police Officers. The prosecution was represented by Mr. Pominville, an Advocate, and the Petitioner appeared merely on the instructions of the Attorney-General, and as his representative. On the following morning, after the Prisoner was gone, Mr. Justice Drummond issued his writ of Habeas Corpus, to which the Gaoler returned the warrant of the Governor-General, and also the written Order given him by the Judge as before mentioned. On the same day...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT