The Express.
London, England, 1849-05-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURTS.—YzaTERDAT.
Duos Ts Yuma or Tim ious.
Tin GRAND JOINICTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIMS.—
CAPACITT OF TIM CIIMICILLOZ TO 'MIDI Al TO RIGHTS
or Joirr-orom CoxrANY Ix wawa Hz IS A [Mimi-

HOLDS*.
The ha this gem, which
Wester of the It Ala gave judgment
was heard lest term en a meets by the dellanMr. Wm.
Dimes, to Menem* as order of the Lied affirm-
toga declaim of the Vice-ChanesUor et Itemised -.cues
a piece of eopyhold lead. over which the Grand issellm
Canal wee made, in Riskstansworth, Hertfordeldm Mined
which the dakedent ehdmed le be entitled to as lord OHM I
maser, ea the pound that when the canal was
made the compasy did not buy the intend of
the lord, bet only homed the eopyholder's interest, taking
an indestaity ikon him wad the lord's claim. His lord.
ship said it wee melended- that the plaistiffe were not end-
the bagels der order, bat that it ought to be dim
thieged without repel to the merits of the case. The
=
the aoplisaMea was that the Lord Chancel=iatma,
and et the dam of the man and AM, was in
In the matter in question in the eases. The suit related to
swish which the deinadant claimed to be entitled
em The attiife were • joint stock company, and the pre-
=were entitled to shares in the company, and; the
lee losg before, sal at the date of the order, was the
peemistor of certain shares. It was alleged that here wee
each an interest is the property of the company attached
to the shares that the Chancellor was entirely thereby
ieespentated from making the order in question. The
vales of the shares of a joint stook company depended
ft the market pries el the day, or the meant
of assets which there might be on winding up the dram. It
mold be a strange notice to suppose that It could hem any
Islam's es the raiod of 'judge, although it might be more
esfikimatisy le being • matter relating to the company Were
a biting no such interest. The fed that the Lord
Chemerßer was the owner of the shares was communicated to
Dime sahrequently to the order, and he said that he was not
aware Olt at the tame the cedar was made. It wee not al-
I.ged that the Lord Chancellor had it in his mind when he
made ihe order, that he was interested in the matter in quee-
n= its the same ; and Dimes, when he discovered the inte-
rest, sigh. have applied to have the cause re-heard, and it
might have been re-heard before the Lord Chancellor and
other judges. But he relied on the ground of the judge's
incapacity, and contended that the order was null and void.
This was a technical objection, and he made the nullity of
the order the ground of his application. There was no cogni-
tion as to the validity and importance of the general rule,
that no one ought to be the judge in his own
cause, and that no judge ought to do a judicial
act in • muse in which he wee interested. This
was a fundamental and important rule, and ought
not to be departed from without necessity. And
is ell eases in which there were several courts of co-ordi-
nate jurisdiction, or several judges in one court, there was
no difficulty in acting on the rule. But eases might arise in
which the Me must give way, or there would be a failure of
justice. Where the sole jurisdiction was vested its one judge,
with tuba/Mate judges or deputies whose orders were not
valid until adopted by the superior judge, a ems might arise
in which it would not be possible to act on the rule, without
• denial of justice. The Lird Chancellor was virtually the
mkt judge in Chancery ; and, notwithstanding his position
as such, he might sue and be sued in the Court of Chancery.
That cess was provided for in practice, by addressing the bill
le the Queen herself, in her High Court of Chaneery. Amid
le seek mots the cause ought to be heard before the
Master of the Rolls, with or without assistance, and the
deems, though formally made by the Master of the Roils,
would be the decree of the *overdo. But this practise
would not sestet in a ere like the preeest, in which the Lord
Chancellor was not so interested es le be • necessary party to
the suit. Every order mode by the Malta of the Rolls, or
the Vice Chaneeller, wen subject to be reheard and div-
eressilimed by the Chenceller alone. Aced it must
be W”led by hint berme It could be deemed to be a final
order. And there must, therefore, be a failure of justice if
the Lad Massa" meld not act in such • ems. And the
het that he wee a proprietor of Bank stock, or Bait India
Meth, sr a Metes of the British Museum, would, if the ar-
gument ice Dimes were to prevail, inespasitate him from doing
any judicial nets is suits to which those companies or bodies
were parties. Other cases might be put of the same
met, in which the kneed. of individuals were such as not to
make it aecessary that they shoal be parties to the came.
Mappens', in this ease, that the filmed of the Lord Chan-
cellor had been known to Dimes when the Vise. Chancellor
made his order, the Lord Chancellor being incapable, ac-
cording to the argument, of hearing the cause, Dimes might
have deeirilipeal to the Home of Lords ; but he could
not have to the House of Lords until be had en-
rolled the and he mull not have enrolled the decree
until it was eigsed by the Commencer. But, if the argument
was coned, that signature could not he given. The sigma-
tare M the Chancellor to the decree of a subordinate judge
for the pews of appoling to the House of Lords limed,
he emeseded, merely a saidenal set, but it was • judicial
act, and le might refuse to sign the decree if he thought
fit to hear theorem himself. According, therefore, to the
amusing el Dimes, the Chancellor could not have le-
gally Itheilds signature te the Vice-Chancellor's decree, and
the Hewn of Leeds meld set have heard the ippon. And if
the Vies•Chaeseller's Wier wee erommas, as alleged, there
would hare hem • ham of justice. He was of opinion
that the aomment el Dimes was fallacious. With regard to
what Dimes might to have done when he found out the Lad
Claseeeller's interest, he was of opinion that he sould act
=Zoe thatPU" for
Plater of " 'Rioremantod be
by
the
wheat the muss. And that part of the present
had bees properly abasimed, because the Lord kenealler
had no oMberUtto her emit • commission, sad bemuse
the right el the Peammeree the stridence of the Maw
of
the Sidi use whim Ms to vest in the Master of the
Bab the aralhesby embed in himself. Agaiskle
seam snail have been made but by the
Chemiler ; and the miler of any of the ether judges
weal& hoes Men his order] and, according to the
so Mogi ad. Bat so judge was obliged to makelragn=2
eras; sic& U Mr. Dimes was right, the Lord Chancellor, if
applied le by him, when he discovered his intend in the
= seraveeursa:to have refined to interfere, and the result
a denial of justice to Dimes himself. The'
eggement was involved in absurdity. It might be admitted
that where a strict adherence to the rule in question would
sot lead to a failure of justice, the judge ought not to
make an order ; but he ought to act, if his refusal
to do so womb! mount to a denial of justice He
was of epialea that a judge could not be legally
incapacitated from doing any set within his peculiar
jrisdidion if the effect of Ids refusal would be • denial of
ustice. &judge must have in mess of this kind a certain
degree ef tfiffettm, and if there were other judges having
• eis-erdinate jurisdiction he might get them to hear the
muss. But If the judge had the sale jurisdiction in the
matter, as ma the case of the Lord Chancellor, he must act,
or there would be a imbue of justice. Applying these pea-
-1 fteito the present ems, he thought the Chancellor
properly have signed the Vice-Chancellor's decree,
might properly, if no party objected, have directed the
cause to be heard before another judge; or, if either party ob-
jected to this course, he might have rotund to hear the cause
and is mach case the parties might have appealed to the
House of Lords. But if the Roues of Leeds meld not bear
the appeal unless the coder were made by the Lord Chan-
cellor, it would have been his duty te hear it is prevent •
denial of jostles, however painful it might be to himself to
do se. Foe these names he was of orioles that the order
made by the Chancellor ought not to be treated as a nullity,
sad he should humbly advise the Lord Chandler that the
moths ought to be vassal with come.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH.—T=I=MT.
BRIMS IN DANCO.-30011/ LAD DINKA'', 11.1. Jewess Parrssoe.
Ns. Joan// Oweemes, AID XL 'MKS Nam
Tat QUINN V. KENDALL AND MIMIC BILLING •
Ceorrserr.
le this OW, whist was tried at the shalom after last
Hilary TOM, at Kiddie's:, it will be reeellseted that the
live d fondants were ledisted for a stimitreesnoar is the tele
of a cadetship, in the Bat InaCompeey's service, for
1,0001.. to Mr. Moore, to he gives to his ese, who was
aowdaated throsilt taw iatasit al Lady Rimy with whoa