It was
consequently always ready to listen to the complaints of suitors who
thought themselves aggrieved by the decisions of the regular tribunals,
and it was fond of altering the course of justice to make it conform to
what the members were pleased to call equity. This abuse finally took such
proportions that Hutchinson remonstrated vigorously in a speech to the
houses in 1772.
"Much time is usually spent ... in considering petitions for new trials at
law, for leave to sell the real estates of persons deceased, by their
executors, or administrators, and the real estates of minors, by their
guardians. All such private business is properly cognizable by the
established judicatories.... A legislative body ... is extremely improper
for such decisions. The polity of the English government seldom admits of
the exercise of this executive and judiciary power by the legislature, and
I know of nothing special in the government of this province, to give
countenance to it." [Footnote: Mass. State Papers, 1765-1775, p. 314.]
The disposition to interfere in what did not concern them was probably
aggravated by the presence of judicial politicians in the popular
assemblies, who seem to have been unable to resist the temptation of
intriguing to procure legislation to affect the litigation before them.
But the simplest way to illustrate the working of the system in all its
bearings will be to give a history of a celebrated case finally taken on
appeal to the Privy Council.
Pages:
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489