THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.
92

The plaintiff below demurred generally to if the Legislative Council of Van Diemen's
these pleas, and the Supreme Court (probably Land cannot claim the power they have exer-
acting on the authority of the case of Kielly v. cised on the occasion before us, as inherently
Carson, decided in this Court in 1842: 4th belonging to the supreme legislative authority
Moore, p. 63), gave judgment for the plaintiff, which they undoubtedly possess, they cannot
holding that the facts set forth in the pleas of claim it under the statute as part of the com-
justification did not constitute a defence at law, mon law of England (including the "lex et
The question was argued before the Com- consuetudo Parliamenti"), transferred to the
mittee at considerable length, and many points Colony by the 9th Geo. IV, cap. 83, sec. 24.
were raised and discussed, upon which we think The "lex et consuetudo Parliamenti" apply
it unnecessary to form any opinion in order to exclusively to the Lords and Commons of this
decide the present question. The principal country, and do not apply to the Supreme
point is, undoubtedly, of great importance, in- Legislature of a Colony by the introduction of
volving, as it does, on the one hand, the con- the common law there.
stitutional rights and authority of the legislative
bodies in various parts ot Her Majesty's Co-
lonial territories; and, on the other, the right
to personal liberty (unless deprived of it by law),
which Her Majesty's subjects take with them,
as part of their birthright, to every portion of
Her dominions. The subject is not new to
this Court; it has been discussed before on
more than one occasion. In the case of Beau-
mont v. Barrett, from Jamaica, (1st Moore, p.
59, A.D. 1836), it was decided that an Assembly
possessed of Supreme legislative authority had
the power of punishing contempts; that the
power was inherent in such an Assembly, and
incident to its legislative functions; and, accord-
ing to the judgment in that case, every Colonial
Assembly or Council possessed the same autho-
rity to punish for contempts which the House
of Commons has exercised in this kingdom for
a long series of years.

But, in the year 1842, the same question (in
substance) came before this Committee on an
appeal from Newfoundland, and was twice
argued; the second time before the Lord
Chancellor, two noble members of the Com-
mittee who had formerly held the great seal,
the three chiefs of the Common Law ourts in
Westminster Hall, two out of the four members
of the Court who were present at the decision
of the case of Beaumont against Barrett-the
Vice-Chancellor and Dr. Lushington; and on
that occasion (page 84, of 4th Moore), "Their
Lordships were of opinion that the House of
Assembly did not possess the power of arrest,
with a view to adjudication, on a complaint
of contempt committed out of its doors."
They held that the power of the House of
Commons in England was part of the "lex
et consuetudo Parliamenti;" and the existence
of that power in the Commons of Great Bri-
tain did not warrant the ascribing it to every
Supreme Legislative Council or Assembly in
the colonies. We think we are bound by the
decision of the case of Kielley v. Carson, the
greater authority of which, as compared with
Beaumont v. Barrett, it is quite unnecessary
to enlarge upon. An attempt was made to
distinguish the present case from those cited;
the authority of the Legislative bodies in those
cases being derived from the Crown; whereas,
the Legislative Council of Van Diemen's Land
derives its legislative authority from a statute
of the Imperial Parliament. We think there
is no foundation for this distinction; and that

It was argued, however, that as the Legis-
lative Council had the power to make the in-
quiry out of which these proceedings arose, as
inherently belonging to their supreme legis-
lative authority, the Supreme Court had no
authority to examine into the validity of the
warrant; but we are of opinion that it suffi-
ciently appeared by the pleas that this was an
arrest with a view to punish for an act alleged
to be a contempt, but committed away from
the House of the Assembly. Their Lordships,
therefore, are of opinion that it was not justi-
fied by the pleas, and that the judgment below
ought to be affirmed, with costs, and we shall
advise Her Majesty accordingly.

Treasury,
Auckland, 28th June, 1858.

HIS Excellency the Governor has been
pleased to appoint the Native Chief
TOHI TE URURANGI,
of the Ngatiwhakane tribe,
to be a Native Assessor for the district of
Rotorua.

C. W. RICHMOND.

Registrar-General's Office,
Auckland, 28th June, 1858.

PURSUANT to the provisions of an Act
of the General Assembly of New Zealand,
entitled "The Marriage Act, 1854," the fol-
lowing Name of an OFFICIATING MINISTER
within the meaning of the said Act, is pub-
lished for general information :--

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Reverend William Johnstone,
(Port Chalmers.)

I, John B. Bennett, Registrar-General of
Births, Deaths, and Marriages in New Zealand,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Name of
an OFFICIATING MINISTER within the meaning
of "The Marriage Act, 1854," has been sent
in to me, in addition to the Names in Lists
published respectively in the "New Zealand
Government Gazette" Number 2, of the 26th
of January, Number 4, of the 11th of Feb-
ruary, Number 8, of the 19th March, Number
12, of the 13th April, and Number 15, of the
15th May, in the present year.

Given under my hand, at Auckland,
this twenty-eighth day of June,
1858.

JOHN B. BENNETT,
Registrar-General,