“It is a fundamental rule in the administration of justice, that a person cannot be judge in a cause wherein he is interested.”[7]
In another place, the same learned writer says:--
“It is, then, a rule always observed in practice, and of the application of which instances not unfrequently occur that, where a judge is interested in the result of a cause, he cannot, either personally or by deputy, sit in judgment upon it.”[8]
This rule had its earliest and most authoritative judicial statement in an opinion by an eminent judge of England, who has always been quoted for integrity in times when integrity was rare: I mean Chief Justice Hobart, of the Court of Common Pleas. In his own Reports, cited as Hobart’s Reports, I call attention to the case of _Day_ v. _Savadge_, where this learned magistrate said:--
“It was against right and justice, and against natural equity, to allow them [the Mayor and Aldermen of London] their certificate, wherein they are to try and judge their own cause.”
And then he says, in memorable language, which has made his name famous:--
“Even an Act of Parliament, made against natural equity, as, to make a man judge in his own case, is void in itself; for _jura naturæ sunt immutabilia_, and they are _leges legum_.”[9]
Thus strongly and completely did he cover the present case, reaching forward with judgment. According to him, even an Act of Parliament making a man judge in his own case is void. But, Sir, he was not alone. His great contemporary, and our teacher at this hour, Sir Edward Coke, in a very famous case, known as _Bonham’s_, which I have not before me now, but which is referred to in other cases, lays down the same rule,--that a court of justice will not even recognize an Act of Parliament, if it undertakes to make a man judge in his own case.[10]
But another judge, who, as lawyer and authority in courts down to this day, perhaps excels even the two already cited,--I mean Lord Chief Justice Holt,--has explained and developed this principle in masterly language. I refer to what is known as Modern Reports, in the case of _The City of London_ v. _Wood_, where he says:--
“I agree, where the city of London claims any freedom or franchise to itself, there none of London shall be judge or jury; for there they claim an interest to themselves against the rest of mankind.”