The Master of the Rolls (Sir John Leach,) After showing that the question was one of law and not of fact, and that the Court below had miscarried in directing an issue, proceeded to comment on the Act 24 Geo. 3, c. 19, and expressed his opinion as follows: "I wish it to be understood as to the intention of this Act, that the immediate object was to provide against the enormous charge made by the executor of an estate for the management of such estate; the mischief as to the purchase money not being in the contemplation of the enacting part. The first part of the clause (sec. 8) claims 6 per cent. commission to trustees, attornies and others, for their management out of the annual rents and increase of the property, which is not an unreasonable commission for such services. No commission is given by the terms of this section out of the proceeds of sale of an estate, and it is a mistake that the parties here have fallen into, to suppose that to have been the meaning of the Act. The Act, however, does give a commission of 57. per cent. for receiving and remitting monies lent, or remaining at interest in the island, that is, 2 per cent. on its receipt and 2 per cent. on its remission; and therefore though it has clearly no view to purchases, yet under the equity of the statute it may be said that money received for an estate is the same thing as money received from a debtor to the estate, and the same principle ought to apply to it; and the Court would not complain of that principle here, if White had actually sold the estate in Jamaica, which would entitle him to the commission of 2 per cent., and if he had afterwards transmitted the money to England, to 23 per cent. more, making in the whole the 5 per cent. which the Act has provided for. But since he neither received or remitted the purchase money, the estate being sold in England, their Lordships are of opinion that he has no right to the commission claimed. Let the decretal order of the Chancellor of Jamaica, bearing date the 27th day of February 1826, be reversed, and decree that the respondent do pay to the appellants the sum of 1,680 7. currency, together with legal interest thereon, from the time when the testator, John White, retained the same, and also the appel 1828. HENCKELL v. DALY. 1828. HENCKELL v. DALY. lant's costs of the suit in Jamaica, to be paid by the Registrar of the Court there. As to allowing commission to mortgagees entitled to the consignments, see Bunbury v. Winter, 1 Jac. & Wal. 261; Cox v. Champneys, Jacob. Rep. 576; and Leith v. Irving, 1 Myl. & Keene, 277; over-ruling Sayers v. Whitfield, 1 Knapp, 133. See also Jamaica Act above cited, 24 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 8, which declares That mortgagees in possession are not entitled to any commission for their management or transactions of or concerning such possessions, except what shall be paid to the factor for his commission." .. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AUGUSTUS HARDIN BEAUMONT and The Honourable RICHARD BARRETT, JOHN) Appellant, SAY, HENRY LOWNDES, BENJAMIN Respondents.* WHITTAKER, ALEXANDER JOS. LINDO, ALEXANDER DELEON, ISAAC SOARES, and WILLIAM DALTON THIS 17 June 1836. The power of punishing her in every assem inherent bly possessing a supreme legislative authority: Present: The Vice-Chancellor, Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Justice whether they Bosanquet, and the Chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy. are such as tend indi. rectly to ob struct their proceedings, or directly to bring their authority into con⚫ tempt. The House of Assembly in Jamaica being possessed of supreme legis. lative authority over that island and its dependencies, have such power, and were therefore justified in committing a party guilty of publishing certain libellous paragraphs which had been resolved a breach of the privileges of the House, to the custody of the keeper of the common gaol in the county of Middlesex in that island, to be detained during the pleasure of the House. Quære. Whether the warrant to the serjeant-at-arms, directing him to take the appellant into custody, justified him in committing such custody to the gaoler of the gaol in Middlesex. 1836. BEAUMONT v. BARRETT, It appeared from the record that the appellant's action was brought under the following circumstances: On the 4th December 1833, it was resolved by the House of Assembly of Jamaica, then sitting, that certain paragraphs in a newspaper of that day, called the Isonomist, were a breach of the privileges of the House. The appellant, the printer and publisher of the Isonomist, having been thereupon, by an order of the House, summoned to attend touching the breach of privilege, and having been called to its bar, was shown the Isonomist and the particular paragraphs to which the preceding resolution referred, and he was asked by the Speaker of the House of Assembly, if he, the appellant, were the printer and publisher of the Isonomist. The appellant stated that he was not the printer, but that he wrote the paragraphs in question, and directed their publication. The Speaker then informed him that the House had resolved that such paragraphs were a breach of the privileges of the House, and desired to know what the appellant had to say in answer. The appellant having been duly admonished by the Speaker, but offering nothing in extenuation, it was ordered by the House that the appellant, publisher of the Isonomist, should be taken into custody of the serjeant-at-arms, and be by him committed to the common gaol of the county of Middlesex, for a breach of the privileges of the House, and that Mr. Speaker should issue his warrant accordingly. The respondent, the Honourable Richard Barrett, was a member and the Speaker of the House of Assembly. In obedience to this resolution, he made and issued his warrant, directed and delivered by him to 1836. v. BARRETT. John Morce, esq., the serjeant-at-arms attending the House, and directed also to the custodes, magistrates BEAUMONT and constables, and to the keepers of the gaol of Middlesex; whereby, after reciting the preceding resolution and order of the House, it was commanded, that the said serjeant-at-arms should take into his custody the body of the appellant, and all custodes, magistrates and constables were thereby required to be aiding and assisting the said serjeant-at-arms in the execution of the said warrant. The serjeant-at-arms proceeded to execute the warrant, and having been violently resisted and obstructed by the appellant, he obtained the assistance of the respondents Guy, Ramsay, Lowndes, Whittaker, Deleon, Soares and Dalton, and of the Honourable John Lunan, William Myers, John Wegg and John Clinch, all of whom were magistrates and constables, and thus executed the warrant, conveyed the appellant to the gaol, and there delivered him into the custody of the respondents, Sullivan and Lindo, who were the keepers of the gaol. On the 5th of December following the respondent, the Speaker, in pursuance of a further order of the House of that date, issued and delivered his further warrant to the keeper of the common gaol of Middlesex, directing him to detain the body of the appellant during the pleasure of the House. Under these resolutions, orders and warrants, the appellant was detained in the common gaol until the 12th December following. As of the February Grand Court, 1834, the appellant brought his action of trespass against the Honourable Richard Barrett, against the said John Morce, then the serjeant-at-arms, but since deceased, who ex |
