SUPREME COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume X, Issue 1314, 29 September 1858, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

. In-re Baker.

. DEl'OltF. HIS HONOR MB. JUSTICE OIIKSSON, Tuesday, September 28th, 1858. Mr. King, on behalf of the Rev. Atluir Baker, had obtained a Rule nisi for a writ ol ccrtiururi to briiiga conviction, and the proceedings of the Magistrates on a charge against Mr. Baker by Mr. G. W. /Schroderfor the purpose of having such conviction quashed—upon several grounds, amongst others—that the conviction was bud upon the face of it, for it did not appear that the Magistrates who adjudicated had jurisdiction that the olTciiee was not certain—that the JVI agistrates had no Jiiiidiction under the Stat. 0 Geo. 4,0.31: because the complaint was not upon that of the party aggrieved l>ut,upon. that of another parly and not upon oath, and, that if the Magistrates hud Jiiiidiction that they had exceeded it—and that the date of the conviction was wrong —being " the day and year first above written," and there was an adjournment, so,that the conviction was dated prior to the judgmont. , , j

. v I, ~^ll!^« Mr. Justice Urcisoii, on the uuttor bun" called on, stated Unit thcio wciecutiin iflultt\its afl'eeting Mr. Pliarim one o( the Alagibtiaten and that it wufthis duty tv furwuid topics of siieli aflidnvits to the (iovuruoi but befuio doing so he would give Mr Piimu/vn dm uppuitumiy ol'lilin.if another nllldiiwL n> in»\ui. M'r.'JJraiitlon on helm f f tlu J isiieeishcnicd cause and contended tbal tin. eonwuioii vv ia correct being in the form prescnbul by the Summary Proceedings Oidiuuuco in foted in the colony, and that the piopei lcinedy was by appeal under such Orlimnoc .mil tlint ait.ii. certiorari wus talwn away the Bule must be discharged. . Mit. 'Kisa in reply—stated, that the Justices had jurisdiction under the i> Gen. -I, «. sst\ t am | that as that Act gave the f:nn of conviction s'.ich form should have liec.i adopted ; but that not being the ease the conviction was bad—that the inagistintos had no jurisdiction, because from the alii lavit it appeared that the pmty aggrieved had not made the complaint but another par/.y not upon oath, which was contrary to the Act of i) Oeo. 41 Mr. K.\ug wont through the several objections tiiulim and.cited authorities in support, a id siilimiltod'iliat the'conviction was bad on such grounds, and also because the judgment was in excess, because it iuflicted a lu'iialty of £5, togetherwijh'iJl 14s for cost-, an excess of jurisdiction under the Act of 9 Geo. 4 ; ; aiul further that. tliere was m> adjudication disposing of the penalty aiiiV pay.input. Mr. Kinur fuithpr submitted,/from the affidavit that the Bench of Mag'istiates miikiiif; the conviction was improperly constituted,'because M' , . Ward, one of the Ueiich, was a practising soliui-or'and disqualified,, unck'.r the' stat. uf Geo. 2,iiud also because ho wasOliaimiau under the Sessions' of Peace Ordinance, with 11 limited jurisdiction. , ,10t; comprising the district ■of Wellington. And further that it ..appeared that Mi. Phiiray.yn, another of the magistrates, duviui; tlie investigalioii ,, hail had conversa» tions with one of the witnesses; which 1 Mr. King submitted was such an inlorfcrence as to render the whole j>roceediugs void. ''".' '■' '■ '' His Honor Mr. Justice Gressoii reserved hu Judgment. -,■.■.,'. 'King v. Featherslnn. ''- '' Smite v. M'Ketizic. Allen v. Fcatherslon. Stimti 'Y. M'Kemir. ~,," 'These causes came on again upon demurrer by plaiutiif on the amended pleii of, dcfemiaiU by way of.justification of part of the libel in the declaration. : !:.,." Mr. King, in support of the demurrer, submi tied that the amended plea was bad, because it was uncertain in not setting forth parts lipun w'uicli the defendant justified; ~■.■,•. ■; Mr. Brandon, in support of tile plea, contended that sulliciciit was set forth, and that t'n plea was good. \>\''.' ...1 His Honor reserved Judgment. ... .>•%