Source: https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Brett,_1st_Viscount_Esher
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:45:18+00:00

Document:
To my mind when a great Judge, a master of the whole subject, thinking it necessary for the decision of the case to carefully examine into and to state the practice, it is nothing to say as against that, that it was not necessary for the decision.
William Baliol Brett, 1st Viscount Esher PC, QC (13 August 1815 – 24 May 1899), known as Sir William Brett between 1868 and 1883, was a British lawyer, judge and Conservative politician. He was briefly Solicitor-General under Benjamin Disraeli and then served as a justice of the Court of Common Pleas between 1868 and 1876, as a Lord Justice of Appeal between 1876 and 1883 and as Master of the Rolls. He was raised to the peerage as Baron Esher in 1885 and further honoured when he was made Viscount Esher on his retirement in 1897.
Working days in England are not the same as working days in foreign ports, because working days in England, by the custom and habits of the English, if not by their law, do not include Sundays.
Nielsen v. Wait (1885), L. R. 16 Q. B. 71.
Ex parte Ford (1885), L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 307; 55 L. J. Q. B. 407.
I do not think that a Judge would wish any statement which he may have made in the course of a case, merely obiter and casually, to be treated as necessarily being an authority on the subject in question; but when a Judge has thought it necessary for the purpose of a case to make a deliberate examination of the practice of his Court, and to state such practice, I do not think the authority of such statement can be got rid of merely by arguing that it was not really necessary for the actual decision of the case. I think that such a statement if cited as an authority is entitled to great weight, though of course not binding on us as a decision.
Ex parte Rev. James Bell Cox (1887), L. R. 20 Q. B. D. 19.
Yarmouth v. France (1887), L. J. 57 Q. B. 9.
Ex parte Bell Cox (1887), 57 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 103.
In re Ayhner; Ex parte Bischofishiem (1887), L. J. 57 Q. B. 168.
Duke of Devonshire v. O'Connor (1890), L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 473.
In re Perkins (1890), L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 618.
As to proceedings in Courts of justice, it is for the interest of all the public to hear what takes place in Court.
Pittard v. Oliver (1891), L. J. 60 Q. B. D. 221.
The Queen v. Judge of City of London Court (1891), L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 299.
Public policy requires that some hardship should be suffered by individuals rather than that judicial proceedings should be held in secret.
Kimber v. The Press Association (1892), L.R. 1 Q.B. , p. 69.
Allinson v. General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1894), L. R. , 1 Q. B. p. 758.
Roberts v. Plant (1895), L. R. 1 Q. B. D. , p. 603.
A great deal of difficulty has been caused in the administration of the law, and particularly of the common law, by decisions in which technical rules have been formulated which were not true—that is, were not in accordance with the facts of the case.
In re North, Ex parte Hasluck (1895), L. R. 2 Q. B. D. , p. 269.
Reddaway v. Banham (1895), L. R. 2 Q. B. D. , p. 293.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.