The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1864-04-24

'aw Report OF ile london TclsunrhI
liouss og LORDS, April 6.

OTHERS.
Judgment was delivered to day in
this cause.
The only question argued before their
lordships and on which full report
was given as it proceeded, was whether
/ the Barons OF EXchequer had power 10
make certain rules, which they had
done on the fourth of November last,
and under which Il right Of appeal was
/ given against their judgment on the
[ motion for o new trial
The Lord Chancellor narrated the
circumstances which had led to the pres
cnt appeal, and stated that the creation
Off new right Of appeal was clearly an
act requiring the Intervention Of
4 higher power than either the court to
which the appeal lay, or that from which
/ Il came The power Of regulating the
practice Of their court could not confer
/ On the Barons Of Excheouer the power
Of creating q new right Of appeal but
under the form Of orders as to the prac-
tee Of their court, they had conferred
on suiJors in certain cases the important
/ benefits Of a right of appeal which
/ formerly did not exist. 1t was extreme
. II improbable that the Legislature
should have intended to confer on them
the power Of doing this, and this inn
/ probability was increased when they
/ looked at the provisions OF the Queens
/ 8emembrancer Act itself lis lord
sAip then anaiyzed the various actions
Of that statute preceding the 10Th, and
/ said il twas difficult to resist the impress
sion -hat the right Of appeal in motion
| for new trials IN revenue cases was in
! tentiOnaly excluded, and it was still
more difficult to believe that they in
! tended 70 delegate the power OF granting
/ this right which they did not see fit
/ themselves to confer lie next con
sidcred The twenty-sixUh section, under
/ which the barons considered that they
had The right of making the rules OBJ
Jected to- and said that the only practice
which they had the right to regulate
was the practice III their own court
aud not OF the courts Of appeal Were
( Il otherwise they might with equal
/ reason argue that they could make
/ rules as To the practice Of the house OF
/ lolds, which was absurd 4 right OF
appeal was IA right OF invoking the aid
/ of the higher court to correct the errors
Of The court Of primary jurisdiction,
and the superior tribunal must neccs-
/ saFiiy bc consulted a. 10 any change in
/ lis practice But right OF appeal was
NOT matter OF mere practice il was
a. distinct from practice as municipal
/ law was from international law, and
/ though these rules professedly dealt
/ only with the practice Of the court
| they were in truth, 50 many legislative
enacimeuts, and it was misuse Of
/ language To call them rules for regu-
/ latiug the practice Of the court It had
been argued that the right Of appeal
conferred by these rules was merely
step IN the original cause, and that the
( barcns had therefore the power OF pre-
scribiug rules as to the course to be
/ taken on appeal, but they had no extra
/ territorial jurisdiction and could not
regulate the procedure OF any court but
their own The appeal which has thus
been given was a remedy Of quite a
different nature from that provided bv
bill Of exceptions, and he thought il
remedy which the barons Of oXchcquer
had no power to grant IL had been
said that even if they had the power
/ ,ley could not exercise il so rs to affect
pending suits. 1t was unnecessary to
decide this question. But in his opiu-
ION, this argument was not well founded.
IL was, however matter for regret that
any special rule should have been
passed for purposes OF IA particular suit,
and II was more especially a pity that
they should haTo been passed in q case
Involving such important issues as the
present The result had been that in
stead Of authoritative judgment being
obtained on matters of the highest
public interest, the case would produce
nothing but the almost ridiculous spec
tacle OF discordant opinions on mere
barren point OF form His lordship
concluded by moving that the appeal
be dismissed with costs
Lord Crauwolth differed from his
lord-hip lie thought the barons had
power to make the rules The "prac-
tee" referred 70 in the twcntv-six sec
ton included all procedure in the
causes from their commencement to the
end, and As the only effect OF these
rules was to make the procedure in
causes on the revenue side OF the court
more uniform with that followed on
the plea side, he thought they were
strictly within the words of the statute.
Looking 10 5heir substance and not to
their form thcy gave no new right /
The appeal they did give was merely q
substitution OF one form Of review for /
another by which the suitor got the |
same remedy more cheaply and more /
ecpeditiouslv than under the old form
of the bill Of exceptions. With regard /
TO the arguments that new rules could |
uCt apply opendiug suits, he concurrcd /
with the Lord Chancellor that IL was /
ii.-.uuuded. On these grounds he had |
come 10 The conclusion that the rules I
were warranted by the twenty-sixth .
section OF the Queens Remembrance /
act, and that the Judgment Of the Elk
cGequer Chamber should be reversed. /
Lord ST. Leonard concurred with the /
Lord Chancellor chiefly on the ground I.
that IN the statute, when the legislature
Thought iIj to confer right Of appeal,
,hey d.j It distinctly and expressly
Ike men Of business, and seeing that
they haa given 10 appeal in the cases
of this nature hc considered the cmis-
sion Intentional, and did not believe
JAat JHey had any idc9 OF dclegat;ng
to tle uarous OF ezehcqucr the power
OF granting such q right
Lord Nensleydals concugred with
Lord CcaHwortL. and thought The iudg-
lH,ut oi the court Of EXchcau-r cham
o.. sGeu.J be reversed
.as1 ,A,lm-lo.i caucwrcd with jho
lasG taaa--.'ar and Lod So bgoaagd.
Where E. Wgu.l have been so simple
f...5.. 81. ,n- Legislature I'D express
,A..r meaning distinctly. # they 1.-
tended go confer on Tie ba-ons tG-
f..,- ,aHy-ul-1 Tor. BE could not Ice
i..r- ,-H, ,a-y bad done 80 ly asiug
a.su,s- So obscure ;hat, a.taG several
..ul-e, b-t G.. .ausi-I their ingenuity
ar days 10 attempting 30 yzpian H.
...- s,. .a.t "Es stiil involved Ia doubt
Lord King dogu also coHcured with
sHa Lord lla1c, Ilos. who then formal
IS moved the Judgment and the appeal
R,as dismissed w.iA costs.
Iao Attorney General said he ould
like 20 correct an error in statement
Of fact, winch had boyu made, no
dyaht, Inadvertently hy one o. their
.ogaships