214 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



knowB that they can be trusted, even although it is their duty 

 to look after the work of the contractor, to deal fairly with him 

 in case of a dispute which is in substance, although not in 

 form, a dispute between the contractor and themselves." (See 

 further as to bias of engineer, 35, infra.) 



IV. THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ARBITRATOR. 



Having shortly considered the various ways in which an 

 arbitrator may be called upon to act, it next becomes essential 

 to consider who may act as an arbitrator and how he is to be 

 appointed. 



14. Appointment of prejudiced person. While unprejudiced 

 persons should always be chosen, the parties are at liberty to 

 choose whom they will, or to name some indefinite person, 

 e.g., the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 

 Further, the fact that the arbitrator had some bias at the time 

 of his election would not, if the fact were known to both parties, 

 be sufficient to avoid his appointment. Where, however, it 

 turns out that, unknown to one or both of the parties who 

 submit to be bound by his decision, there are some circum- 

 stances in the situation of the arbitrator which tend to produce 

 a bias in his mind, he is an improper person to act as an 

 arbitrator (Ranger v. Great Western Railway , 1854, 5 H. L. C. 

 89). Even in the common case where either party appoints 

 an arbitrator, who are empowered to appoint an umpire in 

 case they cannot agree, the arbitrators so appointed should be 

 without bias. In a case decided in 1845, the appointment of 

 the surveyor of a railway company to act as their arbitrator in 

 a dispute was held to be objectionable, and in a much later 

 case the Court threatened to revoke a submission where an 

 insurance company appointed their own manager to act as 

 their arbitrator. 



In a Scotch case, a firm of contractors who had undertaken 

 to build a public building agreed with the town council that a 

 particular gentleman should act as arbitrator in case of dis- 

 pute. This gentleman subsequently became elected " dean of 

 guild," and thereby ex-ojficio a town councillor. It was held 

 that this disqualified him from acting as arbitrator (Edinburgh 

 Magistrates v. Lownie, 1903, 5 F. 711). 



The case of Belcher v. Roedean School, 1901, 85 L. T. 469, 



