91

THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.

Colonial Secretary's Office,
Auckland, 28th June, 1858.

NOTICE is hereby given that the following
Tender has been accepted by the General
Government for the six months commencing
1st July next:-

WEEKLY CONVEYANCE OF OVERLAND MAIL
BETWEEN AUCKLAND AND NEW PLYMOUTH.

W. J. Rees, at the rate of per annum £700
instead of £365, as stated on folio 77, Gazette
No. 15, of the 15th May, 1858.

W. GISBORNE,
Under Secretary.

Colonial Secretary's Office,
Auckland, 28th June, 1858.

THE following Acts passed by the Superin-
tendent and Provincial Council of the
Province of Nelson, intituled

"Public Reserves Act," Session 5, No. 4
"Auctioneers Act," Session 5, No. 5
"Cattle Branding Act," Session 5, No. 6
"Dog Nuisance Act," Session 5, No. 7
"Appropriation Act," Session 5, No. 10
"Nelson Improvement Amendment Act,"
Session 5, No. 11
"Country Roads Act," Session 5, No. 12

having been laid before the Governor, in con-
formity with the provisions of the Constitution
Act, His Excellency has been pleased to leave
the same to their operation.

E. W. STAFFORD.

Colonial Secretary's Office,
Auckland, 28th June, 1858.

HIS Excellency the Governor directs the
publication of the following judgment
of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee
of Her Majesty's Privy Council, on the appeal
of Fenton and Fraser v. Hampton, from the
Supreme Court of Tasmania.

E. W. STAFFORD.

Judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council on the Appeal
of Fenton and Fraser v. Hampton, from
the Supreme Court of Tasmania; delivered
February 17, 1858.

Present :

LORD JUSTICE KNIGHT BRUCE.
CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF CORNWALL.
LORD CHIEF BARON OF THE EXCHEQUER.
LORD JUSTICE TURNER.

THIS is an appeal from a judgment of the
Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land, given
in favour of the respondent (the plaintiff below),
who had brought an action against the appel-
lants, Michael Fenton (the Speaker) and James
Fraser (the Sergeant at Arms), of the Legisla-
tive Council of Van Diemen's Land.

The Colony is a part of Her Majesty's do-
minions, by occupation, and not by conquest.

The authority of the Legislative Council is
derived from the British Parliament, under the
13th & 14th Vict. cap. 59. The Council con-
sists of thirty-three Members, one-third of
whom are nominated by the Crown, the other
two-thirds are elected by the inhabitants.

The Council, no doubt, possess a Legislative
authority; they may make Laws or Ordinances,
which (on receiving the sanction required by
law) become binding within the Colony. In
this sense they possess supreme legislative
power.

The action brought by the respondent in the
Supreme Court arose out of the following cir-
cumstances:-

During a session of the Legislative Council
in the year 1855, the Council appointed (in ac-
cordance with their rules and orders) a com-
mittee of their own body, to inquire into certain
alleged abuses in the Convict Department, and
the Council resolved that the Committee should
have leave to send for persons in order to prose-
cute the inquiry. The respondent, John
Stephen Hampton, was deemed a material and
necessary witness in the prosecution of the in-
quiries. Thomas George Gregson (who had
been duly elected Chairman of the Select
Committee) issued a summons to the respon-
dent to appear personally before the Select
Committee at a certain time and place, to be
examined as a witness on the subject of the in-
quiry. The summons was duly served. The
respondent (it must be assumed for the present
purpose) wilfully, and without reasonable excuse,
refused and neglected to appear, and in conse-
quence the Select Committee was obstructed
(so far as this was an obstruction) in the in-
quiries, and the Council was prevented from
obtaining their report; thereupon the Legisla-
tive Council, being informed of these circum-
stances, resolved that the respondent be desired
to attend at their bar, at the Council's House
at Hobart Town, on a day and hour named.

The respondent was dnly served with a
summons to attend, but would not obey it, and
wilfully and contemptuously, and without rea-
sonable excuse, disregarded the summons and
order, and refused to attend. The Council
then resolved that the respondent was guilty of
contempt in disobeying the resolution of the
Council and the summons of the Speaker; and
they further resolved, that the Speaker should
issue his warrant for the apprehension of the
respondent, to be held in the custody of the
Serjeant-at-Arms during the pleasure of the
Council.

In compliance with that resolution, the
Speaker did issue his warrant, and the Sergeant-
at-Arms executed it, and took the respondent
into custody; and this is the trespass complained
of in the Court below.

The defence to the action was founded on the
circumstances above stated, which were respec-
tively pleaded by the Speaker and the Sergeant-
at-Arms, in due form, each of them professing
to justify his interference by the authority of
the Council to make the resolutions and to en-
force them, by issuing the Speaker's warrant,
and apprehending the respondent.