nl custo erit or betoni/o bas
are ord to eno23ibare
t
soltart talift and dads gathivorg oonsathro #anch artt
broile motenary est ra.'t guckamoteng,shtoog bivoɗa
annbir, ord to yee?:00 Isaob÷ther? edt or $2of od
* A
(58)
•
witam toh
.gevlogailu gaoma
.000 h .Hees
P Y.
Sonclosure
Hon. Colonial Secretary,
0.0 78374
1940 24 AUG 00
From the list of cases given by His Honour
in paragraph 4 of his letter (ii) must be eliminated because had
there been an Appeal Court of three Judges the case there cited
would have been heard before the Chief Justice sitting alone in
"First Instance". As it was the case was heard before the "Full
Court" of two i.e. the Chief Justics and the Puisne Judge
because had it been heard before the Chief Justice and then
taken on appeal to the "Full Court" the appeal would in effect
have been from the Chief Justice in the Court below to the
Chief Justice in the "Full Court*, inasmuch as in that Court
of two the Chief Justice has the casting vote when the Judges
are divided in opinion. It was the desire to put an end to that
anomaly which led to the proposed 'scheme' which for want of
co-operation have very unfortunately fallen through.
The 'scheme' was not an ideal one, but
could have been satisfactorily worked as a modus vivendi until
the Colony's finances enabled it to provide a third Judge.
A third Judge is not urgently required
except to constitute a proper "Court of Appeal", but for that
purpose the demand is urgent.
17th. July, 1909.
(sa.) H. S. Berkeley.
* 1༧། དྷ་ཏཱ་ར
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.