The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-31 00:00:00

been guilty of no misconduct whatever, and, therefore,
th,- Chancellor had no authority to di6miss him from the
office.

Lord CAMPBELL—Do you wish us to enter hit° the
1110,it8 of the case?

Mr. FITZROY KELLY—Clearly, my Lord.
Lord CAMPBELL—Then I am afraid we have no power
to do so. _ _

Sir FITZROY KELLY with great submission, contended
they must to some extent look to their affidavits.
Lord CAMPBELL—You wish to contend, that the
Chancellor, although he has heard the parties,., has
improperly decided the question, and therefore it ought
to be submitted to a jury ?
Sir FITZROY KELLY said this was the ground upon
which he moved, and, in truth, it was the only ground
upon which he could move. Well, then, he might state
generally, that the effect of the affidavit was simply that
in reference to his conduct as a judge generally, or to
any particular case, nothing bad occurred during the
ten or eleven months which Mr. Ramshay held the office
Of Judge of the Liverpool County Court which could, in
lay way indicate either misconduct or incompetency in
the discharge of his duties.
Lord CAMPBELL said, according to his present view
Of the subject, the Court had no jurisdiction in the
matter; but they had better assume, for the sake of
the argument, that Mr. Ramshay's conduct and capacity
were everything that could be expected of a county
court judge.
Sir F. KELLY said he had done so, and that was the
reason why he had simply stated the general effect of
the affidavits. There being„ then, no misconduct or
incapacity in the judge, he contended that under the
Act of Parliament the Chancellor had no power to
remove him. If the Court was justified in granting a
quo warranto in the case of a parish clerk who had been
dismissed by a rector, surely it had the power of sanc-
tioning the same proceeding in regard to a judge of a
county court, who had been dismissed by the Lord
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster without, as he
should allege, any sufficient cause.
Lord CAMPBELL said the practice of the Court was to
grant a certiorari or mandamus only when a fair ques-
tion was raised by the affidavits.
Sir FITZROY KELLY said the affidavits showed that
Mr. Ramshay had not been guilty of the misconduct on
the ground of which he was dismissed from the office.
He had been deprived of an office which was important
both in point of dignity and emolument. His means
of livelihood had been taken away, and what was
of still greater moment, his character had been injured,
and this had been done by Earl Carlisle, who had no
power to administer an oath, and could not, there-
fore, arrive at any sound or correct decision.
Re might have acted entirely on false evidence,
yet he had no power to punish or prosecute the
parties. When a parish clerk was dismissed
for inability or misbehaviour, he could apply to the Court,
and on denying those allegations, it would enable him
to try the question before a jury by granting an infor-
mation in the nature of a quo warranto. Could not the
Court adopt the same course in regard to
the . present application? He (Sir F. Kelly)
contended that neither the rector in the case
,of a parish clerk, nor the Chancellor of the
"achy of Lancaster in that of a county court judge,
Was the final judge of the officer's incompetence or mis-
behaviour. It was certainly a very grievous thing that
a man was to be deprived of his livelihood, and
to have his reputation injured, by a tribunal which
had no jurisdiction. That there was no juris-
diction in the Chancellor of the Duoby was clearly
apparent, because the fact of inability and misbehaviour
Was a fact precedent to the jurisdiction commencing, and
the affidavits stated there was no inability or mis-
behaviour.
Lord CAMPBELL said he was at present of opinion
that the decision of the Chancellor was final and con-
clusive.
Sir F. KELLY then detailed at some length the nature
of the proceedings previous to Mr. Ramshay's dismissal.
Re read a private letter from Earl Carlisle to Mr.
Ramshay, which accompanied the formal notice of his
decision, stating that he still believed Mr. Ramshay
possessed many good and great qualities, and that he
had conferred great benefits on the community by his
ministrations, but thought he had not that degree
of self-command which would enable him properly to
discharge his duties.
• Lord CAMPBELL thought the letter might well have
been considered as private, though not marked so. It
Was an effort of kindness to mitigate to some extent the
sufferings which he had inflicted on the gentleman by
dismissing him from the office of judge.
Sir FITZROY KELLY said there was a paragraph at
the end allowing Mr. Ramshay to make what use he
liked of the letter, and he only referred to the letter be-
cause it pointed to the fact that the ground of dismissal
Was not incompetence, but misconduct.
On the conclusion f the Learned Counsel's address,
Lord CAMPBELL, after a brief consultation with his
Learned Brethren, said the Court would consider the ap-
plication, and give judgment on the 10th February.