18
384
Case;
but, having at last seen it, I think I may safely assert that it has no connection with Mr Pollard's Case.
25.
It was the case of a Printer imprisoned for six months by Chief Justice Beaumont for libellous Articles published by him and Sand Westbury in a newspaper. Westbury in giving the decision of the Committee allowing an appeal in that case, explained that the Committee drew a distinction between things done by "Practitioners of Colonial Courts" and things done "in curia" — things done directly leading to an interference with the administration of Justice: if they come within either of these categories!
26.
The leave to appeal was therefore given because the sentence on Mr Dermott was for an offence not done in curia and the justice of which an English Court was therefore equally competent to decide, which could not be the case where the offence had been committed actually "coram Judice."
27. Nevertheless Lord Westbury declared pointedly that whether there was a right to appeal or not, even in "contempts" extra curiam, the object of the Committee was that the important question should be fully argued when it came before them. I doubt therefore that I was rightly advised as to the course, which I should direct Mr Pollard to adopt.
28.
So far from being upset by Mr Dermott's case, I am strongly confirmed thereby. I further believe that the adoption of the Chief
EX.