Mr. Coltman, K.C., and Mr. Renshaw, for the 1836. ST. LOUIS v. Respondents, Insisted that the appellants having neglected to ST. LOUIS. bring their appeal until three months after the time prescribed by the 32d section of the Judicature Act, and not having filed a certificate in accordance with the 31st section of the same Act, were precluded from their right to present or prosecute the appeal; and that the same ought to be dismissed. They cited Gordon v. Lowther (a), and Wilson v. Arnold (b). Mr. Wightman, for the Appellants, Objected to the application of the respondents, relying on the merits disclosed in affidavit of Alexander Gordon, and the delay in making the present application. Mr. BARON PARKE: The rule limiting the period of appeal in this Court to a year and a day, though usually adhered to, is not imperative. The party complaining of delay should not himself lie by and be guilty of delay; if he does so, he has no claim to be heard here. The affidavit of Gordon sufficiently accounts for the certificate not having been filed. Their Lordships are of opinion that this application must be refused, and dismiss the petition. (a) 2 Lord Raymond, 1447. (b) Note (*), infra. See also Cavillier v. Aylwin, 2 Knapp, 72. The following is a copy of the Report and order made in the case of St, James's, 3 December, 1832. Your Majesty having been pleased, by your Order in Council of the 1st of August last, to refer unto this Committee the humble petition of George Arnold, of Quebec, in the province of Lower 1832. WILSON V. ARNOLD. 1832. WILSON V. ARNOLD. Canada, setting forth that, on the 20th February 1828, judgment in the Court of King's Bench, for the district of Quebec, in the province of Lower Canada, was obtained by one William Wilson, against the petitioner, for the recovery of a certain lot of ground situate in the lower town of Quebec aforesaid; that the petitioner felt himself aggrieved by the said judgment, and appealed therefrom to the Court of Appeals for the said province of Lower Canada, and on the 27th of July 1829, the said Court of Appeals having heard the parties by their counsel, reversed the said judgment of the said Court of King's Bench, with costs, and ordered the record to be remitted to the said Court of King's Bench: that by an Act duly made in the 34th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Third, by the Legislature of the said province of Lower Canada, which Act has been generally called "The Judicature Act," it is by the 32d section enacted, that in all cases where an appeal is by law allowed from the said Court of Appeals for the province of Lower Canada to His Majesty in his Privy Council, no appeal shall be granted or allowed after the expiration of one year from the date of the judgment of the said Court of Appeals: that the said William Wilson did not apply to the said Court of Appeals until eight months and upwards after the said judgment of the said Court of Appeals had been pronounced, for permission to appeal from their said judgment to Your Majesty in Council, and such permission was granted to him on or about the 30th of April 1830, upon condition of his giving security that he would effectually prosecute his said appeal to Your Majesty in Council, and in default of his so doing, it was ordered that the record should be remitted to the said Court of King's Bench: that the said William Wilson gave the usual and proper securities that he would effectually prosecute his said appeal, and answer the condemnation, and pay all such costs and damages as should be awarded by Your Majesty in your Privy Council that the said William Wilson did not proceed to prosecute his appeal, or to lodge his petition and appeal to your Majesty in Council from the judgment of the said Court of Appeals with the clerk of your Majesty's Privy Council, until, as hereinafter mentioned, nearly two years after the allowance of such appeal, and more than two years and seven months after the date of the said judgment appealed from to your Majesty in Council: that by the 31st section of the said Act of the Provincial Legislature of Lower Canada, it is enacted, "That &c.": that the said William Wilson, not having filed in the said Court of Appeals such certificate as is required by the said 31st section of the said Act, within the 15 calendar months thereby limited, it was ordered by the said Court of Appeals, on or about the 19th of November 1831, upon the application of the petitioner that the said appeal should no longer operate as a stay of execution, and that the petitioner, who obtained judgment in the said Court of Appeals, should sue out execution as if no such appeal had been made or allowed, and that the record be remitted to the Court below with costs: that the said record was, in pursuance of the said order, remitted to the Court of King's Bench, for the purpose of execution being sued out on the said judgment of the said Court of Appeals, pursuant to the said 31st section of the said Act of the Provincial Legislature of Lower Canada: that the said William Wilson did not lodge his petition, and appeal to your Majesty in Council, or obtain or apply for further time for prosecuting his appeal, until the 24th of March 1832, being four months after the petitioner had obtained the said order of the said 19th day of November 1831, when the said William Wilson lodged a petition and appeal from the said judgment of the said Court of Appeals with the clerk of Your Majesty's Privy Council, and the said William Wilson hath not since taken any further proceedings to prosecute his appeal, or lodged his printed case: that the petitioner humbly submits that the said appeal of the said William Wilson having been delayed in manner aforesaid, and the said petition and appeal not having been lodged with the clerk of your Majesty's Privy Council within 15 months from the time of the allowance of the said appeal, the same ought to be dismissed, and humbly praying that the appeal of the said William Wilson to your Majesty in Council, against the aforesaid judgment of the said Court of Appeals in favour of the petitioner may be dismissed with costs, or for other relief in the premises. The Lords of the Committee, in obedience to your Majesty's said order of reference, this day took the said petition into consideration, and having heard counsel for the petitioner, and also for the appellant, William Wilson, thereupon; their Lordships do agree humbly to report, as their opinion to your Majesty, that the said appeal of the said William Wilson should be dismissed: His Majesty having taken the said report into consideration, was pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council, to approve thereof, and to order, as it is hereby ordered, that the said appeal of the said William Wilson be, and the same is hereby dismissed this Board, whereof, &c. 2 December THIS 1836. having bor was an appeal from a judgment given on the 26th March 1833, in a cause in the Supreme Court of Palmer & Co. Judicature, at Fort William, in Bengal, in which the appellants were plaintiffs and the respondents defendants. rowed a large sum of the Bank of Bengal, deposited Company's paper with the Bank, to a greater The appellants were the assignees of the estate and effects of John Palmer, George Alexander Prinsep, amount, as a * Present: Lord Brougham, the Vice-Chancellor, Mr. Baron Parke, Mr Justice Bosanquet, Sir E. H. East, and Sir A. Johnston. William Prinsep and Charles Barber Palmer, lately trading in Calcutta, in the province of Bengal, in the East Indies, under the style and firm of Palmer & Co.; and they were duly appointed such assignees by virtue of an Act of Parliament made and passed in the 9th of Geo. 4, c. 73, entitled, "An Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors in the East Indies;" and this was an action brought by the appellants, for the purpose of recovering from the defendants the sum of sicca rupees 30,176. 10a. 1p. and interest. The plaint was a special declaration in assumpsit containing special counts on the several agreements hereafter mentioned, with counts for money lent and advanced, money had and received for interest and upon an account stated. The defendants pleaded the general issue non assumpsit, and gave notice of set-off. The cause came on to be tried on the 21st July 1832, upon certain written admissions entered into on both sides, when by consent a verdict was entered for the appellants, the plaintiffs, for sicca rupees 80,000, subject to the opinion of the Supreme Court on the following case: The insolvents above named were, in the month of November 1829, the members and partners of the firm of Palmer & Co., of Calcutta, merchants and agents, and in the habit of taking up, for the purposes of their said firm, loans from the said defendants, in their corporate capacity, as well on deposit of promissory notes of the Government of Bengal, commonly called Company's Paper, as upon discount of their own and other negotiable securities. Previously to the adjudication of insolvency, and on the 12th day of November 1829, the said firm of Messrs. Palmer and Co., in the course of business, bor |