HC Deb 09 July 1889 vol 337 cc1826-7
MR. CHARLES DARLING (Deptford)

I beg to ask the Attorney General, whether his attention has been called to the case of Blankensee ?. Elkan, heard in the Queen's Bench Division on Tuesday last, being an application for a new trial in an action tried in the Sheriff's Court, in the City of London, before Mr. Commissioner Kerr, and to the following words used by the Lord Chief Justice of England:— Lord Coleridge said he had to repeat in this case, what he had had occasion to observe before—that the Judge refused to obey the law as to sending signed notes of the evidence taken before him, and thus inflicted on suitors serious injury. In the present case the nonsuit must be set aside, and a new trial directed. By whom Mr. Kerr was appointed Judge; and, what means there may be of securing that he shall conform to the Law?

* THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

I believe that the report of the language used by the Lord Chief Justice is substantially correct. I am informed, however, that the facts were not correctly stated to the Court, and, unfortunately, the counsel of the plaintiff who had been present at the trial before Mr. Commissioner Kerr, was unable to attend in the Court of Queen's Bench on the occasion in question. The document produced to the Court was not a copy of any notes taken by the learned Judge, and, as stated in the affidavit subsequently filed by the learned Judge, in which statement he is confirmed by the counsel for the plaintiff, no application was made to him to take notes. Upon the facts it is clear that Mr. Commissioner Kerr in no way refused to obey the law. He was appointed in 1859 by the Corporation.

MR. C. DARLING

May I call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that the Lord Chief Justice stated that he had had occasion to comment upon the conduct c the Judge before?

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I do not think it fitting that I should go into that matter. I am not aware of the circumstances to which the Lord Chief Justice referred. Certainly there was nothing in the facts of this particular case to justify a general censure of the conduct of the Judge.