374
:
utility whoever might be Chief Justice, and (2)
whether I understood him rightly to infer that Sir
F. Piggott was averse to allowing a Jury and if so
for what reason. In reply to the first question he
stated that he considered the proposed alteration of
the Law to be a valuable one, and adapted to the
circumstances of this Colony, apart from the individu-
-al attitude of the Chief Justice, and he claimed in
this view to represent the opinions of the Chamber and
Community. In reply to the second question he made
statements of such grave seriousness, that I asked
him whether he wished me to accept them as official
communications made after due consideration. He
emphatically replied that he did, that the interview
he had sought was an official interview, and he was
prepared to stand by everything he said. In brief he
stated that it was a matter of common knowledge that
if a client wished to win his case it was advisable
for him to engage a particular Solicitor, and a
particular Counsel both of whom were favoured by the
Chief Justice. The Barrister in question disliked a
Jury since he was apt to lose his temper and irritate
the Jurors, and that as a result of this state of
things the party to the action who had engaged the
particular Counsel opposed a Jury while the other
side asked for one. He added that any means of
enquiring into the truth of this allegation was im-
-possible, for he had it direct from a highly
respected member of the legal profession (who himself
shared his views) that even were a Royal Commission
appointed, the whole legal profession to a man
(including the speaker) would support the Chief
Justice of whom they lived in terror, fearing pro-
-fessional ruin if the Commission failed to
substantiate