SUPREME COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume X, Issue 2726, 17 January 1879, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—This Day.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies).

In ek Thomas Rennel,

Thomas Reunell, who had been committed to Mount Eden Gaol, charged with the murder of Captain Moller, was brought up by Mr O'Brien, tho gaoler, under a writ of Habeas Corpus, with the view of ascertaining the rights of the Court? of New Zealand to detain the said Thomas Reunell in custody. Mr Hesketh appeared for prisoner, aud asked that the gaoler., return might be filed aud read.

Mr Wiilcocks, the Registrar of the Court, read the return, which simply stated that the prisoner had been committed to the custody of the gaoler, by virtue of the warrant, under the hand of R. C. Barstow, Resident Magistrate.

Mr Hesketh submitted that the return be effective, as it did not shew that prisoner was detained on any other cause than that get forth in the warrant.

Mr Tyler, who appeared for the Crown, contended that the return was null.

His Honor: What is the amendment. Mr Tyler replied that it was necessary to substitute a fresn warrant; that prisoner be detained until such time as prisoner can be sent to the colony of Fiji.

His Honor suggested that the new warrant should be added to the original warrant; and that the gaoler hold Thomas Rennell in custody under such second warrant, marked B. Mr Hesketh asked that prisoner might be released from custody, as the second warrant was insufficient, the Courts having no jurisdiction over the prisoner. Mr Tyler opposed the application at some length, adducing facts from several judicial authorities. Mr Hesketh replied, and contended that if a prisoner can be brought into Court by Habaes corpus, and no enquiry instituted into the limits of jurisdiction and power of the magistrate to commit, the Haboos corpus Act was useless. Mr Hesketh quoted from Chitty, and various statutes in favour of his proposition. His Honor considered that a magistrate was jn_.tif.ed in taking cognizance, in common law, '■ of serious offences. Mr Hesketh said the magistrate had assumed that there was a High Commissioner at Fiji, in signing the warrant of detention, and quoted from the Pacific Islands Protection Act of 1872, and the amended Act of 1875, in order to show that these Acts had no application in the present case, as the offence was not committed within the Queen's dominions. He also urged that all the existing statutes granted by the Imperial Parliament showed that the Queen had not full jurisdiction in common law, and the document upon which the prisoner was detained must show jurisdiction, which these warrants failed to do; and he would respectfully submit that the prisoner must be discharged. Mr Tyler replied to the argument, which was proceeding when we went to press.