|
|
At the hearing of my appeal, against District Judge Hill's order, striking out the action, Mr. Justice Moses, unlike District Judge Hill, allowed me to read off my submissions, in support of the appeal.
MY NOTICE OF APPEAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
KINGSTON UPON HULL DISTORT
REGISTRY
B E T W E E N
JAMES FREDERICK HULBERT...................................................................Plaintiff
and
SHEILA MARGARET WEST.........................................................................Defendant
1. TAKE NOTICE that so soon as the above named appellant, or Counsel, on his behalf, can be heard on appeal, from the orders herein, of the learned District Judge R. N. Hill, made on the 7th day of October 1998, whereby he ordered, that the above action be struck out as disclosing no cause, and that the above named Plaintiff do pay the above named Defendant's costs assessed at one thousand, and ninety four pounds, and 50 pence, the Court will be asked to annul the said District Judge's order.
2. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the learned District Judge wrongly exercised his discretion, by striking out the action, as disclosing no cause, after apparently, accepting the submission made by the Respondent's Solicitor: that he did not think that allegations of corruption are causes in civil law, but are causes only in criminal law, and the learned Distinct Judge ought to have held, that the Solicitor's tentative submission was wrong, and he himself ( NOTE - by striking out the action presumably upon consideration of the tentative, submission) was wrong in law.
3. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Respondent's Solicitor wrongly exercised his discretion, by submitting that he did not think that allegations of corrupt acts, are causes in a civil action, when, as the certified transcript of a hearing in the High Court, on the 22nd May 1996, demonstrates, that the High Court Judge, while referring to criminal acts, held that as a remedy to anyone damaged, he would be entitled to sue, whereupon Counsel, who had been instructed by the Respondent's Solicitor, immediately agreed with that ruling, and the Respondent's Solicitor ought not to have made the submission, in the knowledge that when damage is alleged, as stated in the Statement of Claim, it is clearly a cause for civil litigation.
4. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the learned District Judge wrongly exercised his discretion, by refusing the Applicant, (myself) who acted in person, permission, to read off his submissions, in opposition to the Respondent's application to strike out, and he ought not to have allowed the Respondent that unfair advantage.
5. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Respondent's Solicitor has sworn, by way of affidavit, that there is clearly a triable issue in this action, and has indicated that the Respondent is unable to defend the action, by stating, in a letter to the Applicant, (myself) that it is impossible for the Defendant to provide particulars for her denials, which is contrary to the rules, when allegations, and known facts are denied.
6. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the learned District Judge wrongly exercised his discretion, by not hearing the Applicant's application, for summary judgement to be entered against the Respondent, on the ground that she has not provided a single particular in support of her denials of the known facts, the Applicant's application having been made before the Respondent's application to strike out the action.
7. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the learned District Judge wrongly exercised his discretion, by ordering the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs, assessed at one thousand, and ninety four pounds, and 50 pence, without agreement, (for them to be taxed) by the Applicant, and without such costs being taxed.
8. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that if the Applicant's appeal is successful, his application: made on the 7th April 1997, for summary judgement to be entered against the Respondent, falls to be considered.
9. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant proposes, that this appeal, be assigned to the Queens Bench Division of the High Court.
Signed J. F. Hulbert.
TO - Solicitors for the Respondent.
AND TO - The Court.
NOTE - My appeal, as expected,
was all in vain, because under no circumstances, was a Circuit Judge, going
to be prosecuted for a corrupt act, and that being the case, Mrs. West
had to be protected also, in order that her silence is maintained. Am I
just unfortunate to have come up against Judges' who have abandoned their
principles: Judges' who are hypocrites?
hulbert2zat.karoo.co.uk