William Rainy, Appellant; The Justices of Sierra Leone, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1853 |
| Date | 02 July 1853 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 14 E.R. 19
Privy Council
Mews' Dig. tit. Colony; III. Appeals to Privy Council; 1. When an appeal lies generally. See M'Dermott v. British Guiana (Judges of), 1868, L.R. 2 P.C. 362, 5 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 466; 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.
[47] FROM SIERRA LEONE. WILLIAM RAINY, Appellant; The JUSTICES of SIERRA LE6NE - Respondents [Feb. 7, 1852,* and July 1 and 2, 1853 t]. The Judicial Committee have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from orders made by a Court of Record in the Colonies, inflicting fines upon a Practitioner for contempts of Court; such Court being the sole judge of what constituted the contempts [8 Moo. P.C. 54]. Upon a reference by the Colonial Office to the Judicial Committee, referring the whole matter of complaint against the Judge concerning the contempts and the infliction of the fines, for their advice and opinion; the Committee advised the Crown to remit part of the fines, which, by an Order in Council, was directed. The Appellant in this case, an advocate and practitioner of the courts in the colony of Sierra Leone, complained of four orders of the Recorder's Court at Sierra Leone, bearing date the 19th, 20th, and 24th days of September, 1851, imposing upon him several fines, amounting in the whole to £130, for contempts of Court, alleged to have been committed by him while engaged in his professional character of advocate in conducting the cause of Patnelli v. Heddle (see ante [8 Moo. P.C.], p. 41) in the Recorder's Court, and also of a decision of that Court, dated the 13th of October, 1851, refusing a rule to set aside a writ of capias and fieri [48] facias, und?r which he was arrested for non-payment of one of the fines imposed upon him by the Court. The case was specially referred by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Judicial Committee, for their opinion upon the merits. In the first instance, the Appellant presented a petition to the Judicial Committee for leave to appeal from such orders, which petition alleged, that he was admitted an advocate and attorney of the Courts in Sierra Leone in the year 1849; that in June, 1851, he was retained, in his character of advocate and attorney, by one Patnelli, to commence and prosecute an action against the Hon. Charles Heddle, a merchant of the colony, a member of Her Majesty's Council, and an assistant Judge of the Courts in the colony, upon a special contract for wages due to Patnelli, as the factor of Heddle; that the Defendant having pleaded to the action, it was tried in the Recorder's Court of Freetown, on the 17th and six following days of September, 1851, before the Chief Justice Carr and the Hon. Robert Armstrong, one of the assistant Judges, and a jury empanelled in the customary manner; that in the course of the trial the Appellant, pursuant to notice given to the Defendant, called for the production of books of accounts and certain other documents having reference to the matter at issue, but which the Defendant refused * Present: Lord Cranworth, the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan. t Present: The Lord Justice Knight Bruce, the Lord Justice Turner, the Right Hon, Dr. Lushington, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan. 19 VIII MOORE, 49 RAINY V. SIERRA LEONE (JUSTICES of) [1852-53] to produce, upon which the Appellant respectfully appealed to the Court to call for and enforce their production, but the Chief Justice took no notice of the application, and desired the Appellant to proceed with the case, which he did, and brought it to a close; that the advocate engaged on the other side [49] having addressed the jury, he began to examine his witnesses, in the course of which he proceeded to put irregular and leading questions to them, whereupon the Appellant objected, but the Chief Justice told him to sit down, which he was compelled to do ; that the Appellant, having cross-examined one of the Defendant's witnesses, he was re-examined on fresh mutter, to which the Appellant objected, but the Chief Justice, in a manner which the Appellant felt was both uncourteous and arbitrary, desired him to sit down and be silent, which he was compelled to do, to the great injury of his client's case; that shortly after this circumstance had taken place, the books of the Plaintiff were called for, but the Appellant declined to produce them unless the Defendant's books were also produced, whereupon the Chief Justice immediately interposed, and asked the Appellant whether he would produce the books, to which he distinctly stated, that he could not give the other side such an unfair advantage; his Honor continued to put the question, and concluded by saying, " Then do I understand that you refuse to produce the books?" that a repetition of the same matter occurred over and over again in the course of the trial; that the Appellant made an effort to convince the Chief Justice that he was mistaken in his view of the law, and what the justice of the case required, but he was told by the Chief Justice " to hold his tongue, and be silent; " that the Appellant then claimed the right of advocating his client's case, and to submit such objections to the Court as he thought were tenable in law, but the Chief Justice again desired him " to hold his tongue, and be silent." [50] That the Defendant's counsel then proceeded to examine his witnesses, and the Appellant having again interposed and objected to the questions put as being irregular and improper, he was again desired " to be silent, and keep his seat; " but claiming and insisting on his right to interrupt the opposite counsel, and prevent his putting leading questions to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HM Attorney General v Crosland (No. 2)
...conferred by Parliament. Specifically in relation to contempt, Lord Cranworth, giving the advice of the Privy Council in Rainy v Justices of Sierra Leone [1852–3] 8 Moo 47 and rejecting an appeal from the Recorder's Court of Sierra Leon gave a further reason (p 54): “… we cannot interfere w......
-
S v Kubheka Mapula
...contempt, was conferred upon Superior Courts constituted in the British Colonies. 41. Thus in Rainy v Sierra Leone (Justices of) (1852-53) 14 ER 19 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council inter alia considered a petition by an advocate and attorney of the Courts in the Colony of Sierra ......
-
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
...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. ......
-
Ambard v Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago
... [PRIVY COUNCIL.] ... AMBARD APPELLANT; AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ... Cas. 459 .] ... Rainy v. Justices of Sierra Leone ( 1852–3 ) 8 ... ...