378
the case required.
as the gravity of the case
8. Your Grace
»
will easily understand
my reluctance to admit
any right of
reference
to me
in a
difference
between the
Chief Justice and a practitioner
in Court. The
practitioner in his
great inconvenience
of the
Executive expressing any opinion publicly,
except
in some
very extraordinary emergency,
and much more
of interfering directly with
the Judicial office, is sufficiently
9.
obvious.
"On the other hand I had to consider
whether Mr Pollard's assertion that he had
no
appeal to any judicial tribunal in
existence"
was
a
fact, and if so whether
he could call on me to
interfere
as
requested. Unquestionably if there was no
appeal in such
a case, and
if a judge
misused his
office to inflict either
humiliation
or
wrong
on
any
one under
pretence of contempt of Court, a Governor
might and ought perhaps
in rare cases
to interpose, provided the inconvenience of
his doing
so
was
evidently less than
the Public
wrong
and scandal that
arise from his inaction.
however saved the disagreeable
task of
being
even
expected
the question
considering how far I might
be
expected
to enter into the merits of the case because the Attorney General,
Mr Pouncelote, pointed out to me a case
in 3. Macaouse tiny & which had occurred in 1852 (1Paily
hivy
Mecharts. Vol Page
~
The Justices of Siena Scone) in which the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council distinctly held that when fines for