UNDIGNIFIED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 123, 26 May 1932, Page 7

UNDIGNIFIED.

JUDICIAL WRANGLE. Bachelor Judge's Public Rebuke Of Lord Justice of Appeal. " PONTIFICAL RETALIATION." (United P.A.—Electric Telegraph—Copyright) LONDON, May 25. The bachelor judge, Mr. Justice McCardic, caused a sensation yesterday by rebuking Mr. Justice Scrutton, Lord Justice of Appeal, for the latter's recent remarks when reversing a judgment of Mr. Justice McCardie. "Before this case begins," said the bachelor judge, "I wish to say that in the event of an appeal I shall not supply a copy of my notes until I am satisfied that Mr. Justice Scrutton will not ho a member of the Appeal Court. I regret that it has become my duty to administer this public rebuke to Mr. Justice Scrutton." The statement by Mr. Justice Scrutton to which Mr. Justice McCardie tooK exception was that he was surprised an unmarried judge should have explained what was proper underclothing for women to wear. "The Times," referring to Mr. Justice McCardie's "pontifical retaliation," eays it hopes the undignified dispute would go no further as it was quite inconsistent with the traditions of the Bench. "Frank and fearless statements of judicial opinion should be encouraged, but they are not incompatible with tact and good manners.

"Happily such incidents are rare, and though they will not lessen public confidence in the judicial system, they must inevitably tend to lessen public respect for the members of the judiciary who provoke them."

In reversing a judgment of Mr. Justice McCardie recently, Mr. Justice Scrutton, a married man with three sons and one daughter, remarked: "If there is to be a discussion o£ the relations of husbands and wives, it would come better from judges who have more than a theoretical knowledge o£ huetands and wives. Mr. Justice McCardie has referred to judges who possess sociological knowledge, but I think that the less sociological knowledge is brought to bear on legal questions the better. I am a little surprised that an unmarried gentleman should, as Mr. Justice McCardie has done in another case, explain what is the proper underclothing for women to wear. I think that these things are better disregarded in legal discussions." The case was one in which John Place, a Cambridge grocers' assistant, sued Dr. Charles Searle for damages, alleging that the doctor had enticed his wife away from him. Mr. Justice McCardie found for defendant, and the result of this appeal enabled Place to have a fresh trial.