CHIEF JUSTICE DUVAL.
nIS public functionary has interest, has at least a power
ful friend, at Court, and the link which binds the one to the
other is not inexplicable. But as no explanation is imme-
diately necessary, I shall, with the avowed intention of
bringing about the removal of one whom I hold to be quite
unfit for the position which he occupies, revert to the conduct
of the Judge as Judge.
He was one of a minority unfavorable to me, and he opened
as follows:-" The Appellant (Gugy) would not, I think,
" have succeeded in his action even in the Courts in France.
" Domat, who cites the ordinance of 1539, says that ordi-
" nance had gone almost out of use. It appears, however,
" to have. been revived for vexatory actions."
On the last occasion on which I wrote, much hurried by the
approaching departure of the mail, I did not direct public
attention to the discrepancy between the language of the Judge
and that of the author whom he named, nor did I affirm as I
now do that the inference which he drew from Domat wasn
the very reverse of the doctrine which that author inculcates.
In this matter I am perfectly conscious of the disadvantage
under which, in thus setting up my opinion in opposition to
that of the head of the law, I labor. But putting myself, as
it were, on " my country"-addressing myself to the whole
community as to a jury-I shall place the words of the Judge
and those of the author in juxtaposition. The rule on which