CASE OF MR. JAMES BIRCH. (Hansard, 28 June 1853)

LORD CAMPBELL

said, that he had a petition which he had had some doubts about presenting; but on consultation with the Lord Chancellor, his noble and learned Friend had advised him that it was his duty to present it, as their Lordships' House ought to be open to the complaints of all persons. It was the petition of James Birch, of the City of Dublin, complaining of an abuse in the administration of justice, and praying against a recurrence of the same. The petition was, in fact, a complaint against an Irish Judge—Chief Justice Lefroy—a very learned and very honourable man. He (Lord Campbell) had at a former period of his life been opposed to him in politics; but he had always respected him, and had every reason to believe that he merited the respect of mankind. The petitioner, James Birch, said, that having been libelled by a great number of different persons, he brought actions against them; that the defendants aggravated the injury by justifying the libels, so that there was necessarily a record of great magnitude and complexity; that the cause stood for trial at the last assizes for the county of Kildare; and that then the Judge refused to try it, and struck it out of the list, on the ground that he was not furnished with a sufficient abstract of the issues joined upon the record, which it appeared was in Ireland usually furnished to the Judge by the plaintiff in any action at Nisi Prius. The Chief Justice, on looking at the abstract supplied to him, said it did not put him in the slightest degree in the possession of the facts, and ordered the cause to be struck out of the record. Mr. Birch complained of this, and stated that the Court of Exchequer in Ireland had, after a discussion which lasted two days, held that the Chief Justice was not justified in striking the cause out of the list; and he set forth that although this decision had relieved him from the payment of the costs of the other party, still he had had to pay his own; and he desired that some measure might be taken to prevent the recurrence of what he considered to be the grievance which he had suffered. 907 He (Lord Campbell) having informed Chief Justice Lefroy that he was about to present this petition, had received from that learned person a letter, which it was only just to him to read. He said— By the rules and practice of our courts the plaintiff is bound to furnish to the Judge at Nisi Prius a full abstract of the pleadings and the issues joined. Mr. Birch brought an action for libel, in which the pleadings, including several special pleas of justification, occupied—horresco referens—sixty skins of parchment, closely written, amounting to over 600 office-copy sheets. The abstract furnished, the total insufficiency of which was admitted by the plaintiff's counsel, consisted simply of a statement of the number of counts in the declaration, and the number of the pleas, without any information as to the nature of the counts or the pleas, or of the issues joined, leaving the Judge as ignorant of the cause he had to try as your Lordship is at this moment. When the record was called on—I mean the sort of abstract which had been furnished—I ordered it to be struck out; and this, I suppose, is the grievance complained of. If there were, as no doubt there was, such a rule in the courts of Ireland, it was quite clear there was an evasion of it in this case; for the petitioner had not furnished the Judge with the necessary information to enable him to try the cause. It seemed to him that Mr. Birch was mistaken in supposing that he had any ground of complaint, and still more so in supposing that he had any ground of complaint to that House. There did not seem to be the least occasion for any legislation on the subject. He (Lord Campbell) had done his duty in laying this petition on the table of the House for the inspection of their Lordships; and he had no doubt that, notwithstanding this complaint, Chief Justice Lefroy would still retain the high reputation which he had hitherto enjoyed.