§ Lord Wharncliffepresented a petition from an individual named Wharton, residing in the county of York, praying for there-hearing of a cause which had been decided by there Lordships upon an appeal. The question related to a legacy left by General Lambton; and a suit in equity having been instituted, the Vice-Chancellor pronounced a judgment upon it. An appeal was made to the Lord Chancellor (then Lord Brougham) who confirmed his honour's decision. Upon the case being brought to their Lordships' House the decree of the Court of Chancery was reversed, and the petitioner now prayed that the cause might be re-heard. He certainly felt rather averse to the re-hearing of a case which their Lordships had decided upon its merits, although he considered it his duty to present this petition. The petitioner, however, stated one ground on which he principally relied. He stated that it was the uniform practice for their Lordships to give notice, either to the parties or to their agents, of the time at which a judgment would be given, in order that those parties or agents might be present, to furnish any necessary information or to supply any deficiency which might occur at the moment; but that in this case no notice had been given. The consequence was that neither the parties nor their agents were present. How far this was a sufficient ground for a re-hearing he was not prepared to say, but perhaps the noble and learned Lords present would be able to state.
§ The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the point was fully inquired into in the last Session of Parliament. A noble Lord presented a petition praying that the House would order a cause to be re-heard. Precedents were immediately searched for, and although there were some instances found in which rehearing had been ordered, in consequence of omissions, yet it appeared that there had never been a re-hearing on the merits of a case; and the noble Lord who had presented the petition withdrew it. That in the present instance the parties had not had notice of the judgment could form no ground for a re-hearing. Such notice might certainly be convenient, but it was by no means requisite. He recommended to the noble Lord to withdraw the petition.
Lord Broughamconcurred with his noble and learned Friend in recommend- 1248 ing the noble Lord to withdraw the petition. The present was one of two cases in which the House had differed from him while he held the great seal. He was not present when the House gave its judgment. He did not complain of that. Had he been present he should either have been convinced by the arguments of those who differ from him, or he would have endeavoured to enforce his own opinion. It was a case which he had considered very fully; and although now, after the decision of their Lordships, he was bound to believe that he was wrong in the judgment he had formed, yet all the Members of the profession with whom he had consulted were of opinion that he was right. He agreed, however, with his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack that it was quite impossible to open the case now. The absence of the parties or their agents on the delivery of the judgment was no ground for adopting such a course of proceeding. He repeated his recommendation to his noble Friend to withdraw the petition.
§ Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he should not have moved the judgment of the House on this case, in the absence of his noble and learned Friend, had he not been pressed by the parties on both sides to do so. As to the parties not knowing the grounds on which the judgment proceeded, all he had to say was, that two gentlemen were present who usually reported the legal proceedings of their Lordships, and who had reported those grounds most accurately.
§ Petition withdrawn.