CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9] — Page 381

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