legislation in order to confer this right upon the Judges; but I incline to think that due to a lacuna together may suffice to give jurisdiction in Chambers. Judged by a General order when passed,
are trying,
the
Please spare some time, for if the Judges are to deal with the difficulties of the Gibbons case; and besides it,
unmay
h
requisite to cure their past omissions -
M. Hubut
J.
17.12.
Mr. Wingfield & I have discussed this question,
we think that both section of the Bankruptcy Ordinance? 564
Until 1873 & in that year
A
is Probably sufficient to authorise the Chief Justice to with ease and the Exercise Bankruptcy Jurisdiction in Chambers; the question is not free from difficulty.
is to
should owing to the
to the fact, that it was thought necessary
in dealing with Private Matters by one. 8 of 1860 to enact two sections 20.421 specifically giving this power to the Judges and that in the end 18 of 1873
for think the then existing Supreme Court Ord. 60. 1846.5
dec. 23-(as amended by 207-1846) which had empowered
the Chief Justice to make a Tack on order prescribing what portions of their business should be taken in Chambers; and that a similar
power of making a General Order for the like purpose
was
confined to see. 7 (1) of the Bankruptcy Ord = ; But in the absence of any Rule the Judges
to exercise their discretion as to the business which might
or might not be taken in Chambers in thing were bound to sit in Court: unless they could fall back, upon the English
rules under the proviso to see. 7: We are however unable
agree with the Judges that that Jurisdiction
to
can be taken to supply the want of a rule of general
precedent such as here required -
421
411
And it would seem advisable to direct the Judge to introduce an
Ordinance which shall remove well
Ambition hence
The
Any
subject in the future, as the same
defects of jurisdiction that might be
set forward as to the fact.
a state of
Mash
with the Attorney General & the Judges holding different views upon such a subject, it is unsafe to leave things as they are; uncertainty is undesirable in any matter Affecting the administration of justice, and therefore the discussion should I remain without delay-
1. h
It
may
I question whether the Judge should Express
Any opinion when the law passed the day or content himself with directing legislation.
J-13/1~
I refer Ew 20.12
ари
Mußranston.
I touch upon Gibbons Matter on another
paper that it is undesirable in
interests
well
A
the public
of questionable legality,
for the Judges to transact Bankruptcy business
+
in Chambers.
I think and some
Mary
cci
this ? and is not it Doubtful whether the Colonial Supreme Court Judges, also necessary
not always to cry wise men,
Should have
20.