The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-05 00:00:00

DUCHY COURT OF LANCASTER.

(Before the Right Hon• the Earl of CARLISLE, Chancel-
lor, attended by Mr. ELLIS, Q.C., Attorney-General
of the Duchy.)
This Court sat yesterday for the hearing of statements
in support of a memorial presented to the Chancellor of
the Duchy, praying for the removal of Mr. Ramshay,
Judge of the County Court at Liverpool, from the office
which he now holds.
The following is a copy of the memorial, upon which
the hearing was granted :
" To the Right Hon. the Earl of Carlisle, Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster.
"The humble Memorial of the Members of the
Liverpool Guardian Society for the Protection
of Trade, and of the Inhabitants of Liverpool
generally,
" Showeth,—That your memorialists are greatly in-
terested in the due administration of the laws affecting
debtor and creditor, particularly those passed for the
more speedy recovery of debts under the system of
county courts, recently introduced in this country.
" That your memorialists had hoped to partake of the
general advantage thus conferred upon the country;
they considered it was a boon to them, which offered
increased facilities for the recovery of debts by less ex-
pensive remedies than had theretofore been provided;
but in this your memorialists have been grievously dis-
appointed, by reason of the appointment of a judge of
whose conduct they are constrained to make serious re-
presentations to your Lordship.
" Your memorialists would beg most respectfully to
submit that no system, however excellent or perfect in
itself, can work beneficially or advantageously to the
public, unless presided over ,by an individual properly
qualified for the office.
" That a judge of a county court should not only pos-
sess sound legal knowledge, but also a cool, calm, and
courteous demeanour and temper; and be willing to bear
with, and assist the poor, but unskilful and inexperienced
plaintiff or defendant in the management and conduct
of his claim or defence. That in this respect, the judges
of the superior courts have less to contend with, inas-
much as they are uniformly approached by a bar of
learned and competent advocates, whereas the judge of
the county court has the case presented to him by the
parties themselves, who are often ignorant of the rules
of evidence and the mode of conducting a cause.
" That Mr. Ramshay, the Judge of the Liverpool
County Court, lacks the latter qualifications above al-
luded to to a lamentable degree. That he appears to be
labouring under some painful and wearying bodily ma-
lady, which renders him physically unfit to discharge the
laborious duties of a judge. That he is almost carried
to and from the bench, being totally unable to support
himself erect. That he is not able to put the questions
to the parties and their witnesses, which office is conse-
quently performed by the High Bailiff or some assistant.
That he cannot take any notes or memoranda of the evi-
dence adduced, so as to assist his memory, and ade-
quately discharge his responsible duties. That his men-
tal powers cannot fail to partake, to some extent, of the
infirmities of his body. That his temper and disposition
seem so sowed by these or other infirmities as to render
him rude, uncourteous, and positively insulting to the
suitors who appear before him, and very many persons
will not hazard taking proceedings in his court to tear
of personal insult.
"That respectable tradesmen, and others, are fre-
quently subjected to gross and unmerited abuse by him;
that they are called fools, idiots, described as brainless
and senseless, and are, otherwise, the objects of offen-
sive and disagreeable observations, when they happen
not to bo stating their case, or giving their evidence, in
accordance with the taste or whim of the judge. That
scenes of this painful nature were almost daily to be ob-
served in the court whilst he presided in it. That in con-
sequence of such conduct the business was greatly dimi-
nished. That whilst a deputy afterwards presided, in-
stead of the judge, the business immediately increased
to a very great extent, the deputy having given univer-
sal satisfaction. That your memorialists cannot calculate
with any certainty on an efficient deputy being con-
tinued, and are kept in constant apprehension of a return
to the unsatisfactory state of things they have before de-
scribed ; and, as the remedy is in your Lordship's
hands, they appeal with confidence to your wisdom and
justice to relieve them from this state of doubt and un-
certainty.
"Your memorialists, therefore, humbly pray that your
Lordship will be pleased to remove Mr. Ramshay from
the office of judge, and appoint a gentleman in his stead
possessing the necessary qualifications to discharge the
responsible duties devolving on a judge in this important
community."
Mr. Whateley and Mr. Whitmore appeared for the
Liverpool Guardian Society, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins
for Mr. Ramshay.
Mr. WHATELEY begged in the outset to be permitted
to assure his Lordship that he appeared in this case
with the greatest pain it had ever been his lot to feel in
the discharge of any professional duty. He had had for
several years a professional acquaintance with the gen-
tleman whose conduct was now impugned, and from that
experience should have said that his acquirements would
have qualified him well to fulfil the task imposed upo❑
him as judge of the County Court of Liverpool. Having
said thus much it became necessary that he should offer
evidence in support of the memorial just read, a docu-
ment which had been signed by 3,525 persons of un-
doubted respectability and character, and which proved,
what it was impossible to deny, that a great and a very
widely extended feeling prevailed against the conduct of
the judge therein mentioned, since the date of his ap-
pointment in May, 1850. He (Mr. Whateley) was in-
formed that then, or soon afterwards, Mr. Ramshay was
afflicted with a severe bodily illness, to which a good deal
might be attributed; but whether it was to be at-
tributed to natural infirmity of temper, or whether
the temper had been acted upon by the disorders of the
body, it would, ho feared, be too clear that that
gentleman had not conducted himself in the way to
obtain, or even to preserve, the respect of the suitors in
his court. Witnesses," however, should be called, and
from them his Lordship would best learn the ex-
pressions and behaviour of which the people of Liver-
pool complained—complained so much that tradesmen
having a variety of causes which they wished to bring
forward often declined to do so in consequence of their
uncertainty of the judge. There were other cases, not
so numerous hut more important, in which Mr. Ram-
shay, where, as he thought, parties had not brought for-
ward sufficient evidence, had ordered verdicts to be given
for the defendant, instead of merely nonsuiting the
plaintiff. So that the latter, instead of being able to
bring his case forward in a more efficient state, has, in
consequence of tho temper of the moment, been barred
for ever of his claim. Of the witnesses to bo called some
would be parties who bad failed in their suits; some,
parties who had succeeded; others, reporters who were
present. Of the first section it would be said they had
motives; but this would not, at least, apply to the re-
porters, and to those who had succeeded, and whom he
was about to examine. The matter was one which in-
dividuals could not settle; it was in the aggregate these
things were important; and the question came simply to
this, whether the general demeanour of the judge had
not been such as to render the court actual, less effi-
cient than it ought to be, and under other circumstances
would have been.
John Holbert Joyce, the first witness called, said he
was a general commission agent and collectorof accounts
in Liverpool, and had been in the habit of attending the
county court since the appointment of Mr. Rau:tabu.
He had remarked that gentleman, and observed that his
deportment was very uncourteous.
Mr. Sergeant Mimes—Give instances; you are not
asked fur general observations.
Witness—Had heard him call plaintiffs or their wit-
nesses "fools," " idiots," " stupid blockheads," and say,
" you must be drunk, what are you mumbling about?"
That had been frequent. Not on every occasion. He
had called him (witness) an " impertinent, stupid fel-
low." That was in a case of Quigley v. Scott, of which
witness gave the particular& The plaintiff first went
into the box to prove the sale and delivery of the goods,
and to him the judge said, "You don't understand your
own book-keeping. You can't satisfy me." Witness
then gave his evidence, and though behaving by no
means disrespectfully, but just as on the present occasion,
was termed "an impertinent, stupid fellow." The
plaintiff was nonsuited. In another action the same
plaintiff was nonsuited again, and after that Quigley
would allow witness to take no more cases into court,
preferring to lose his accounts rather than to issue a sum-
mons. He told witness to call upon parties and try to get
the money, bat not again to summon them to the County
Court. Witness recollected the case of Dodson v. Ec-
cleston. He attended before the county-court judge
with the plaintiff's brother. It was proved by plain-
tiff's brother that the goods had been delivered to the
servant of the defendant. Witness himself proved hav-
ing called at the residence of the defendant some two
months before, and his having seen the lady of the house,
who promised payment at a given date. The judge on
this tension gave the verdict for defendant. He at first
was about to nonsuit the plaintiff, but then immedi-
ately recalled his words, and ordered the clerk to enter
a verdict for the defendant. The judge said something
of the plaintiff's brother, but witness forgot the words.
In another case cited by witness, Moss v. Hughes, he
had attended at the County Court on behalf of the plain-
tiff and accompanied by plaintiff's clerk, who brought
the day-book and the ledger, first to prove the receiving
of the orders; and secondly, to show that they were
taken from defendant, defendant's wife, or defendant's
servant. Witness proved an admission by defendant
of his liability, and his having made various arrange-
ments to pay by two instalments, 4/. 9s. ld. being the
whole amount. He having given that evidence, and
plaintiff's brother having given his, the judge nonsuited
them, and called the plaintiff's clerk, an aged man, a
member of the Society of Friends, " a stupid, mumbling,
old blockhead." The defendant did not appear, nor
any person from him; but he called afterwards at plain-
tiff's shop and paid the amount. Witness had since had
many cases from Moss, who had instructed him to exert
himself al much us he could to recover the accounts
without proceedings, but if they were large, and not
otherwise to be obtained, to issue a writ in the Borough
Court. Moss said that witness should not go into the
County Court, for he could not depend upon the decisions
of the
,judge. The witness was proceeding to give evi-
dence as to similar instructions which, as he alleged, he
had received from various other tradespeople, when
Mr. Sergeant Weetents asked whether a man was to
be allowed to give evidenoe for some eight or ten people,