I will not say that a witness shall not be asked to what may tend to disparage him: that would prevent an investigation into the character of the witness, which may often be of importance to ascertain. I think those questions only should not be allowed to be asked which have a direct and immediate effect to disgrace or disparage the witness.
It is true that Courts of equity, in administering justice, sometimes go further than the Courts of law.
Amendments ought not to be made, except in cases where the alteration is of such a nature as that no one can be misled by it.
No man can come into a British Court of justice to seek the assistance of the law who founds his claim upon a contravention of the British laws.
Inconvenience arising from the operation of an Act of Parliament can be no ground of argument in a Court of law.
When Courts adopt a fiction they must necessarily support it.
The act of a single Judge, unless adopted by the Court to which he belongs, is of no validity. As the Courts do not sit in vacation, many things are done by the Judges individually; but their acts, when recognised, become the acts of the Court.
In matters where a company is not restrained by Parliament they have a right to make reasonable regulations; but it will always be a question whether their regulations are reasonable or not.
