HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. 



151 



of the Supreme Court. Mr. Anstruther, afterwards Sir 

 Alexander Anstruther, Eecorder of Bombay, and who was 

 also sworn in as an Advocate only, had been called to the 

 Bar before leaving England. 



A proviso contained in the charter, that no person other 

 than the practitioners of the Eecorder's Court should be 

 capable of being admitted or enrolled or of practising in 

 the Supreme Court without the License of the East India 

 Company for that purpose first had and obtained, was done 

 away with by the Statute 3 and 4 William IV, c. 85, s. 115, 

 whereby it was enacted that it should be lawful for any 

 Court of Justice established by His Majesty's charters in the 

 East India Company's territories to approve, admit, and 

 enrol persons as Barristers, Advocates, and Attornies in such 

 Court without any license from the said Company, any thing 

 in such charter contained to the contrary notwithstanding; 

 provided always that the being entitled to practise as an 

 Advocate in the principal Courts of Scotland should be deemed 

 and taken to be a qualification for admission as an Advocate 

 in any Court of India equal to that of having been called 

 to the Bar in England or Ireland. 



In July 1853 Mr. J. W. Branson, then an Attorney of 

 the Supreme Court, applied to be admitted as an Advocate, 

 submitting that it was evidently the spirit of the charter 

 that the offices of both Advocate and Attorney should be 

 performed by the same person, and that it was not competent 

 to the Court to separate what the charter had so clearly 

 united ; but the Court (Eawlinson, C.J., and Burton, J.) 

 refused the application on the ground that they could not 

 set aside what had been held to be the proper construction 

 of the charter for half a century. 



The Barristers of the Supreme Court had between seven 

 and eight years before the date of Mr. Branson's application 

 been authorised by Act I of 1846, s. 5, to plead in the Court of 



