human
in which Bradlaugh argued that, as he had actually made affirmation, he could not properly be sued (as he had been) for sitting and voting without taking the oath. The judges ruled that as he was not in their opinion entitled to affirm, the fact of his affirming was not a valid answer. Defeated here, Bradlaugh decided next to endeavour to overthrow the action on what he described as a pure technicality, the argument that, as the writ was dated 2nd July 1880, and the vote sued on had been given on that day, the action had been brought too early,
gpt
This point was raised on 16th and 17th May before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr Bowen, on Clarke's counsel moving for judgment, and Bradlaugh advanced a long and learned argument on the point. Judgment was delayed, and the legal point was tried on 20th and 21st June, before Justice Denman and Watkin Williams, on the plaintiff's amended statement, Bradlaugh demurring. His demurrer was overruled, Justice Denman admitting that the point raised was
human
but not applicable to this case; and his lordship gave this singular reason:
gpt
For a legal fiction is for the purpose of doing justice, not for defeating it. It was not suggested that justice was being done in the case in hand; but if Bradlaugh's argument were to hold good, it might be defeated in somebody else's case.
human
No rule of law, said Justice Watkin Williams concurring,
gpt
another decision worth remembering in the present connection. Bradlaugh drily wrote in his journal:
human
I think the decision of Justices Denman and Watkin Williams is in accordance with common sense, but I do not think it is consonant with common law. He added:
gpt
I shall, of course, appeal against the decision. The next step will probably be the trial at _Nisi Prius_