420
What took place in Court undoubtedly was, that I respectfully protested, not against his judgment making part of his judgment but against his judgment.
of the Crown in Crabs, Condemnation of the Crown is a point of great Constitutional importance and one which had not been argued.
Since then he has delivered judgment in Reg. v. Sonza and Reg. v. Senza in which he says "There must be no Cast against the Crown."
As the Chief Justice himself remarks "Surely there must be some confusion here." Although the Chief Justice says in his letter that he declines to answer the simple question asked of him, he has done so.
Past this, the Crown are written frogment that they have to pay Costs. He says (p. 7) 'although the decision was without hearing Counsel, Counsel was not heard because Counsel would not embrace the opportunity which was offered for arguing the question.' and at page 8 "Whatever judgment I gave against ... was without hearing. The reason was that Counsel did not avail themselves of the leave offered".
Mr. Pollard, Q.C., and Mr. Hazeland occur with me in most positively asserting that the above statements on the part of the Chief Justice are totally unwarranted by the facts.
It was never proposed for an instant that so grave a point should be argued then and there, but on the contrary the Chief Justice distinctly stated, as appears by both the Newspaper Reports which accompany his letter, that he would hear the Counsel argue...