Bombay.
The Times, 1824-10-09T00:00:00

We have received Bombay GazetUs to the 20th of Mlay. The following are extracts : SUPRtEME COURT OF BOAMBAY, SATURDAY, MAY 8 We are happy to announce to our readers, that the Supreme Court of Judicature at this Presidency was this day established. A few minutes after ten o'clock, Sir Edward West with Sir Charles Chambers, entered the Court, and imnediately afterwards the New Charter of Justice vas openly reat and proclaimed; after which Sir Edward West took the oaths as Chief Justice, and Sir Charles Chambers, as one of the Puisnes: Sir Ralph Rice, the other Puisne, was not arrived. He is not expected here, we believe, for some months. Upon the publication of the charter, os royal salute of 21 gus was fired. Upon the Chief Justice being sworn in, a salute of 17 guns was glven, and Sir Charles Chambers received one of 15 upon his taking the oaths. MONDAY, MrAY 10. The Supreme Court met this rmorning, and after the barristers. solicitors, and officers of the Court, had been sworn in aspractition. era of the New Court, The ADvoCATE.-GENEflALrose, asd observed to the Court, that His Mlajesty had been graciously pleased to grant him his letters patent, giving him precedence over the reat of the bar of this Court, and nioved that the same might be read, and a copy filed, ant an order consonant thereto made: the letters patent were accardingly read, and the motion complied with. A discussion then took place respecting the right of Mir. Mlor- ley to precedence over the other gentlemen of the bar-namely, 1 r. Irwin, Mlr. Parry, and Alr. LeI Messurier. The three latter gentle. men objected to MAr. Morley's right, upoE the ground that they were barristers called to an inn of court in England, whereas Mr. Aler- ley bad never been so called, but had merely been permitted to act, as an advocate, in the Recorder's Court, upon its first institution, having been originally an attorney. The question had been before disciussed BO far back as the year 1808, between iMIr. l4orley and AIDM Macklin, wlhen the Court (Sir James Macintosh being at that time Reodr,decided in favour of Alr. Mackliln. flpon anapelb ntr. Mor ey from this decision, the Appellate Court in Engtand re- fused to interfere at ali h matter, it beiag a quiestion, they said, solely for the considertion, and at the discretion of the local Court at Bonibay. Notwithstanding the deeision, MPVr. Mtorley, during the Recorderships of four of Sir James Mlacintosh'ts successors-vsz., Sir Alexander Anst-ruther Sir George Cow-per, Sir William Evans, and Sir Anthony 2ulmer, bad been allowed to take precedence over three of the barristers of the Court-viz., Mr. Mt'Nagltten, Ir. Staveley, and MVr. Irwin. vAfter an argument of some letigth, the Court gave it as their opinion, that Mlr. MVorley was entitled to the precedence. In the courishe of the discussion, Sir C. CIASSIs observed, that thepower which this Court had over ita bar under the Charter, was similar to that visitatorial power which the i'welve Judges inEngland had over tite barristers there in respect to their privileges and conduct;- and that the opinion o this Curt, therefore, upon any of the rights of the advocates practising In it, was without ap ea]. It was a local court, and was the most proper and fit Jd eo the merits and qua- litications; of its advocates. In the il%fel curts in Enaland, and particularly, as lie had noticed, in the Mayor's Court at Chiester shortly before leaving England, persons practising as advocates in those courts, though not regularly barristers, are yet allowed, anid do take rank and precedence over the advocates who are actually barristers, and have been called to one of the Inns of Court. BOMBAY.