If it would suit the views of the Attorney General, W.W. Pauncefote, and not entail on him too great a sacrifice to take the Summary Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and thereby presiding in the Supreme Court occasionally for the Chief Justice, there is of course ample precedent for the two appointments being held together.
It is, however, quite clear that no other practitioner at the Bar would have the same weight as W. Pauncefote or give the same prestige to the Bench. W. Pollard is out of the question on account of the strong personal differences between himself and the Chief Justice. W. Goodlatte refused the appointment of Acting Attorney General when W. Pauncefote went home on leave because he admitted he was not competent for the Post. Much less can he be suited to perform the duties of Chief Justice.
The latter, nevertheless, must now be regarded as probably, if not almost inevitably, attaching from time to time to the Judgeship of the Summary Court, unless some fresh Legislation on the subject be undertaken to reconstitute the Courts of the Colony on a different footing. I therefore consider that whilst objections recur to almost every arrangement, there are fewer to the appointment of W.W. Pauncefote.
Page 406