in Chambers has been followed by every successive Judge since 1864, and that this amounts to a rule under the Act (1861). I do not know what the information is worth, but the sources of it may be referred to. Assuming the fact, and assuming that the practice in question ([5 of 1864]) has failed to make provision, I am not sure that I perfectly apprehended the argument derived from the interpretation clause of the Reconstruction Ordinance (12 of 1873) taken in connection with section 31 of the same Ordinance and with general orders. It did not amount to an adoption of the rule; it still amounts to nothing as authority for sitting in Chambers.
The Ordinance (5 of 1864) gives power to adopt a rule under the Act 1861 for general provision for practice; it only permits the discretionary application of such a rule in particular cases where the ordinary rules for procedure (viz., general orders under the Ordinance (5 of 1864)) are not applicable.
What it accords is that the Court of Bankruptcy, which is part of the Supreme Court, may sit in Chambers. The Supreme Court may sit in a certain part of the Supreme Court building called Chambers; therefore, the Court of Bankruptcy...