comment was wrong. Assuming the facts to be so stated by the C.J., the S.J. affected to disregard the express provisions of an order. The passages on p. 5 of the judgment which I have marked A. 473 seem perfectly justified. I see no harm in the passages marked p. 6 & the one marked (6 s. five) is a plain & not discourteous statement of the constitutional position. The para. in p. 8 as to illegality might have been left unsaid: here, I think, Sir H.P. was trying to annoy the Govt. & perhaps applies to p. 4. In C. S. Jenks' remarks on p. 15 marked by the Earl, A not seem to be out of place. On pp. 8 & 4.
On the whole I see no harm in Sir J. Siggott's remarks except that on p. 11, I think he has unnecessarily dragged in references to the action of the Govt. which are not justified. If the facts are stated in the judgment, the rest of the statements to which Sir d. Legard takes exception, appear to me to be not only harmless but desirable, inasmuch as they show that no S.J. had acted illegally.
I suggest that it will be sufficient to acknowledge this dispatch & express the hope that a satisfactory settlement of the dispute which is the subject of the judgment may be effected.
I am not qualified to discuss this case from a legal point of view, but I think that nothing that has happened has justified the language in which Sir J. Piggott has delivered his judgment. The root fact is that the S.J. is unable to conceal their dislike and annoyance.
I should mark: this expresses regret that Piggott should have been unable to restrain himself in temperate language. Sir J.
I would suggest, however, that this outburst affords additional reason for telling him plainly that he will have to go. (as he is 60. see 24978.)
Sy
Sie Ashwood
This unnecessary
R.E.S.
20 3/8
Page 16
60/# 0009 *-1801
'(4868)
'M' ' '80/11 '0009 'DZ-1200% *BA 0681)
JR201
to go into the merits