Arches' Court, Saturday, ...
The Times, 1824-02-02T00:00:00

In tmis cause, wmicn comes up to tnc zircies LttrL on appeai, and wlichl respects a right of pew in Lincoln church, the Judge had directed a vertain allegation, which hiad -been asserted on behalf of one of the parties, to be brought in within three days of the ses- sion. Toe Proctor hiad( not complied with this assigniation, but had delivered it to the adverse Proctor on the morning of Thursdav last. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case. snd the pro- tracted length to which the proceedings have already run, Dr. 1jushington felt boun(i to oppose the admission of this allegation. But the Court being inclined to consider that all due diligence hal been used, permitted it to be brought it, although the Court's assig. nation had not been literally complied with. PRIVATE INTOtATION-S. After the business oft'the Court had been transacted, Sir JoHN Ncrior.t. said-I wish to mention publicly a circum- stance upon which I am compelled to remarlk. I vesterday received by the twopenny-post a letter fnrom ?ne of the parties eng-aged in a suit that is now depending in this court. I really do notlknow, nor have I formed any notion down to this momtnt, from which of the two parties so engaged it has come because, directly I observed by the heading of the letter that it related to a suit vwhiclh is stihl depending here, I shut it up and remain at this pre- sent time perfectly ignorant as to who may have been its author. But I do thus publicly desire all parties, in all suits pending in these courts, lo understard, that it is imost grossly improper, and at the same time manifestly itnwise, to write to the Judge privately and personally by letter. It is groQsly im- proper in one party to a cause, to attempt to intluence by his own private representations the mind of a Jutge, which ought ever to re- main in a state of entire impartiality between both the parties; or to endeavour to influence the Court by any representations what- ever etthev be such as, being stated in plea, the atlversary may aafatr and egal opportunity of replying to. There are uatters. indeed,-buttbms excepuon is of very rare occurrence,-which cannot be put in plea, or go toproof, be.ore the Court: but when this is the -c&se, they shoutld at least be stated by the party publicly, either in Court, or in a memorial which may be brought into the Registry, and so deposited as to give the other party futl opportunity of' speak- ing to such matters. 1 hiave said that this mode of v. titing privately |to the udge, is JIso grossly unwise, as well as improper; because, the moment that tlse Judge sees a party addressing him in this covert wasy, he will be apt to feel an i.pression on his mind that the writer has a bad case-that there must be something in it which will not bear the light-something that rvoultd, if possible, avoid public dis- cussion. in all probability, thereobre, the prrty writing such a let- ter, would be acting to his own prejudice. On the present occasion, I am glad of an opportunity to state publicly and broadly, that I can and do most conscidntiously declare, that having seen tbe top of the Page on opening this letter, I immediately folded it up; and do not know from which of two parties in a particular suit it cnome: neither will I ascertain that fact until the cause in question shall be over. When the cause shall so be over, 1 may, perhaps, be inclined, Alr. Registrar, to look at it, in order to see whether it may not contain somethtng that will render the vrriter liable to the penalties of a mis- demeanour. The writing to a Judge privately under such circum- siances cannot by possibility be too strongly reprobated. The learned Judge expressed himself with considerable varmth. ARCIIES' COUIRT. SATUTIDAY, JAN. 31. Tll' REV. ROBEIIT FrTEIHERDERT FlrTL.ER AND Orl'ERS ACGAI?(ST LANE.