JUDGMENT

Sir Barnes Peacock, Kt., C.J. - The question which has been submitted for the opinion of a Full Bench is whether an application for the review of an order rejecting a previous application for review can be entertained by the Court, or whether the order made upon the first application for rejecting the review is final and binding upon the Court which formerly rejected it. The answer depends upon the proper construction to be put on Act VIII of 1859, s. 376, and the other sections of Chapter XI. The question, although it arises upon an order for rejecting a review, must also be considered in other points of view, because, whatever is the proper construction of s. 378 with reference to an order for rejection, appears also to be the proper construction with reference to an order for admitting a review, and to a judgment given after such admission. The words are"and its order in either case, whether for rejecting the application or granting the review, shall be final." The words "shall be final" apply not only to an order for rejection, but also to an order for granting the application. I will therefore consider the case in four different points of view. 1st.--When an application for review is dismissed upon default of the applicant. 2nd.--When the application for review is admitted, and the judgment is altered on rehearing. 3rd.--When the application is admitted and the judgment is not altered on rehearing. 4th.--When there is an order for rejecting the application.

2. Although the question now before us has reference to an order for rejection, I think the case will be made more clear if, before we deal with the question as regards an order for rejection, we consider the case in the other points of view which I have mentioned. 1st.--I shall consider an order of dismissal on the ground of default of the applicant. S. 376, Act VIII of 1859 (the first section of Chapter XI) states when an application for review may be made. It enacts that:-- "Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree of a Court of original jurisdiction, from which no appeal shall have been preferred to a Superior Court, or by a decree of a District Court, in appeal, from which no special appeal shall have been admitted by the Sudder Court, * * * * * and who, from the discovery of new matter or evidence which was not within his knowledge, or could not be adduced by him at the time when such decree was passed, or from any other good and sufficient reason, may be desirous of obtaining a review of the judgment passed against him, may apply for a review of judgment by the Court which passed the decree." S. 377 enacts:-- "That the application shall be made within ninety days from the date of the decree, unless the party preferring the same shall be able to show just and reasonable cause, to the satisfaction of the Court, for not having preferred such application within the limited period." Then comes the section upon which the case turns. S. 378 says:-- "If the Court shall be of opinion that there are not any sufficient grounds for a review, it shall reject the application; but if it shall be of opinion that the review desired is necessary to correct an evident error or omission, or is otherwise requisite for the ends of justice, the Court shall grant the review; and its order in either case, whether for rejecting the application or granting the review, shall be final." That section applies only to two cases: 1st, when the Court is of opinion that there are not sufficient grounds for granting the application; and 2nd, when the review is granted. No express provision is made by that or any other section for the case of the dismissal of an application, for default of an applicant who fails to appear on the day appointed for hearing the application, and who afterwards comes forward and satisfies the Court that there was good excuse for his non-appearance. As the point is not provided for by the Act, there is nothing, one way or the other, to show whether the