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
i
comment was ring. Assuming the facti
to be so stated by the C.J., the Sut affe disuganded the express porons of an ordre. The passages
an $5 f the judgment which I have macked A. 473. seem the perpetty
pistified. Ise no harm in the passages
р.б,
*
& the one marked (
or f
6 s. five,
is a plain & not discoustions statement
the constitutional portion
The pan. in. p. 8 as to illegality might her been left unsaid: here, I think, Sir HPi jjout
to
annoy
the Gost.
& the
fest himself go same puhaps apples to p.4.
In C. Sis umarks on f 15 macked by the Ear.
A not seem to be out & place.
on pp. 84
On the whole I see no harm in Pos 7. Siggott's remarks
exapt that on, 11, I think he has und beroly dragged in uferences to the action of the Gert which ou not agnind. If the facts an stated in the judgment, the resta ... statements to which Su d. Legard take excttion, appear to me to be not only
an
harmless but desirable, inasmuch
y
motorly
No Sort had acted illegally. Tapet
16
60/# 0009 *-1801
'(4868)
'M' ' '80/11 '0009 'DZ-1200% *BA 0681)
I suggest that it with be suficient to
ack the ree! I this
121
dup,
& express the
hope that nochifactory settlement of the
dispute which is the de
may be effected
ģ am
the menti
عليه
the subject of the judgment
JR 201
prte
qualified to discuss case from a ligal
point of view ent
ģ Sahil that
or could
nothing that has happened happen ained justify the language in wh. Li 7. Piggott has delivend his judgment. The root fact is
that the
قعة
مة
is unable to conceal th
despi
cad and
mat
I shd marka ark: this
express repet that Piggott shd h. mable to his specials in Taonably Countians hums.
Sar 7.
express
I wo unge hovorm, that
все
this outburst affords additional for telling him plainly that he will have togo.
as he is 60.(see 24978.)
Sy
Sie Ashwood
This unnecessary
R.E.S.
20
3/8
tofo into the merits
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.