407
their own
former judgment. was contrary to the
to the right
Ordinanc
understanding of the Ordin
M. Indron is, doubtless, aggrieved: but, on the
first place,
no reason and
to authority has been
adduced to prove to M.
Labconchere that such in
The case, and, in the next-
place, wen had this
been shown, the Secreting of State has not the
power to adress grievances
Drich individual,
mag suffer
from
grroneous decisions of the regular legal tribunals,
But if
4.
if M.
Hudson's complaint is
2187
to be taken as applying Mr.
to the conduct of the legal authorities but of the
Local Government, then
it must be lathen as
amounting & this. That
Ele Governor did hein sijustice in causing
allowing the Survegor
Au
4
put the law in action
against him once more