ACTIONS AGAINST the SPEAKER OF OTAGO.

West Coast Times, Issue 579, 2 August 1867, Page 7

ACTIONS AGAINST the SPEAKER OF OTAGO.

THE OTAGO TISIES, JULY 24<) There is to be a sitting in Banco on Friday, and it is understood that the demurrers in Robinson v. Reynolds, and Every v. Reynolds, will then come on for argument. As there have been differing statements as to the question or questions to be raised in Banco, we subjoin an outline of the case as it will come before the Court. There being no essential difference between the documents in the two actions, except as to the name of the plaintiff— Henry Wirgman Robinson in one instance, and Simon Frederick Every, in tlie other— we shall use the term " the plaintiff." . . The declaration states that dri the sth June " the defendant assaulted the plain 1 ' tiff, and caused him to be taken into custody by a police officer, and to be imprisoned and kept in prison for a long time, to the plaintiffs damage of L 500 0 ;" wherefore, the plaintiff claims to recover LSOOO. There is also a notice of special damage to the amount of L 50 — the amount of the fine, or " the moneys which he, the plaintiff, was compelled to pay to procure his release from the said imprisonment."

The defendant, by his plea, denies all the material allegations in the declaration ; and he further says : — 1. That the defendant had been duly elected, and at the time of the assault was, Speaker of the Provincial Council of Otago.— 2. That the Council had appointed a Commitee to inquire respecting " certain matters relating to the public service of the Province." — 3. That the Council, by the warrant of the defendant, as Speaker, dated May 27th, made nnd issued in pursuance and by virtue of the provisions of the Act of ttie General Assembly shortly intituled "The Priveleges Act, 1856," required the plaintiff, he not being a person privileged under the Act, to attend before the Committee, at the Provincial Cduncil Chambers, Dunedin; on May 28th, for the purpose of giving evidence concerning the matters of the said enquiry [the warrant being set out]. — 4. That the plaintiff attended in obedience to the warrant, but refused to answer questions pertinent to the matter in question, and none of which was a question to which an answer could not be required from a witness on examination in the Supreme Court — 5. That, on or about the 3rd June, the plaintiff was summoned to the bar of the Council, to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the 4th section of the Privileges Act, but that he failed to appear and did not show any reasonable cause for his refusal to answer the question; wherefore, the Council vimposed a penalty [Ll9 in one case, and L 5 in the other] and, in default of paymeut ordered that the plaintiff should be committed to the common Gaol at Dunedin, or to some other place to be nanvd by the defendant [for seven days in one case, and twentyfour hours in the other, or until the fine should be paid].— 6. That the plaintiff neglected to pay the penalty ; and that, in default the defendant, as Speaker, on June sth, committed and caused the plaintiff to be taken to the Provincial Council Chambers, at Dunedin, being a convenient place, named by the defendant as Speaker, there to be kept, &c— 7. That before the expiration of the time ' named, tho plaintiff paid the fine, and was thereupon allowed to go at large : and that the committing, &t\, now set forth constituted the alleged assault, &c. as complained of. The pleadings arc dated Juno 12th.

By a replication (June 1-ltli) to the second plea, tho plaintiff says thai the committal, &c, by the defendant, as Speaker, was under and by virtue of a void and illegal warrant. — [A copy of the warrant, is set ou< . It bogius thus— " Speaker's warrant committing . to the Provincial Council Chambers, for disoboying a warrant requitring his attendance or appearance before tbo bar of the Provincial Council of Olago."]

By demurrer (June 25th) the defendant says that the replication is bad in substance. " The matters of law intended to be argued arc — 1. That the replication sets up a new cause of action, which the plaintiff has not relied on in his declaration, contrary to the 64th Rule of the General Eules of Proceeding of this Court.— 2. That for the purpose of committing the plaintiff, and causing him to be taken into and kept in custody, the defendant's warrant was not necessary.— 3. That the warrant set out in the replication is not void and illegal." On the 2nd July, the plaintiff, by joinder in demurrer, says, that the replication is good in substance ; and on the same day, he served notice of objections to the second plea, the matters of law to be relied upon in support of such objections, being— l. That as the Constitution Act docs not expressly confer upon the Legislative Assembly of the Colony the power of legislation assumed by it in passing the Privileges Act, 1856, the last-men-tioned Act is null and void, and furnishes no justification to the trespasses complained of.— 2. That the warrant set forth in the third paragraph of the second plea, shows that the enquiry before the Committee was " touching the management of the Goldfields and the conduct of Goldfields officers," but fails to show in every respect how such an inquiry was an inquiry relating to the public service of the Province of Otago,— 3. That the plea fails to show that the Council had been duly convened, pr tfjw nit! tog *t tfw time pf tl>§ cowmii-

sion of the alleged trespasses. — 4. That ii does not appear, -from the pica that the defendant, as Speaker, was .directed by the Council to issue, or did issue, any warrant for the alleged contempt in refusing to answer questions. — 5. That as the defendant is not a Judicial Officer, nor a Judge of a Court of Beform, the plea should set forth, a warrant justifying the imprisonment, &c. — 6. That the plea does not show in what manner or under what legal authority the Committee was appointed ; (7) nor what questions were put to the defendant, or in what manner they were pertinent to any inquiry relating to the public service of the Province; (8) nor, that the Council Chambers at Dunedin, were named by the defendant as a convenient place, &c, before the piaiutiff was taken into custody.