CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7] — Page 383

378

the case required.

as the gravity of the case

8. Your Grace

»

will easily understand

my reluctance to admit

any right of

reference

to me

in a

difference

between the

Chief Justice and a practitioner

in Court. The

practitioner in his

great inconvenience

of the

Executive expressing any opinion publicly,

except

in some

very extraordinary emergency,

and much more

of interfering directly with

the Judicial office, is sufficiently

9.

obvious.

"On the other hand I had to consider

whether Mr Pollard's assertion that he had

no

appeal to any judicial tribunal in

existence"

was

a

fact, and if so whether

he could call on me to

interfere

as

requested. Unquestionably if there was no

appeal in such

a case, and

if a judge

misused his

office to inflict either

humiliation

or

wrong

on

any

one under

pretence of contempt of Court, a Governor

might and ought perhaps

in rare cases

to interpose, provided the inconvenience of

his doing

so

was

evidently less than

the Public

wrong

and scandal that

arise from his inaction.

however saved the disagreeable

task of

being

even

expected

the question

considering how far I might

be

expected

to enter into the merits of the case because the Attorney General,

Mr Pouncelote, pointed out to me a case

in 3. Macaouse tiny & which had occurred in 1852 (1Paily

hivy

Mecharts. Vol Page

~

The Justices of Siena Scone) in which the

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council distinctly held that when fines for