[From Short History of Transactions in the IoM (or 'Blue Book'), 1825 

N 13.

REPORT OF THE CASE OF KELLY AND CURPHY.

CURPHY was a yeoman with a small estate, and had the misfortune to be a Coroner, and obliged by his office to sell an estate which several of the Keys were interested about. His conduct displeased Mr. Kelly, a Member of the Keys, who brought an action against Curphy. The cause was tried before a Jury, and a verdict found against Mr. Kelly. Kelly traversed to the Keys. On the trial of the traverse, seventeen Members of the Keys attended,-four of whom disagreed or did not sign the judgment, and three of the other thirteen, who were necessary to make a House, and who joined to set aside Curphy's verdict, were, to use the words of the appellant's case laid before the Council, " witnesses on behalf of Kelly, and interested in the cause, and could not in honor and conscience or with any propriety act as Judges in this cause. "

Can any man justify this ? I care not which party was right or wrong; but I ask if this can be considered an impartial administration of Justice, or if the country should not be guarded against such violation of decency as well as justice? The event, however, proves that injustice was done.

 


  Back index next  

switch to frames viewAny comments, errors or omissions gratefully received The Editor
HTML Transcription © F.Coakley , 2007