into collateral subjects be necessary to enable him to arrive at a right decision. In some cases the arbitrator has power, under the terms of the reference, to apply to the Court for directions on any subject on which he may be in doubt, when his proper course will be to “state a case setting forth the necessary facts. An arbitrator's power of amending errors in the record will depend on the terms of the submission.

Although an arbitrator may not delegate his duties* to any other person, but must perform them himself, he may take the opinion of others upon certain questions affecting the merits of the case before him. Lord Alvanley, upon this point, said, "A man may make use of the judgment of another upon whom he can depend, and the valuation of that person is his if he choose to adopt it." An arbitrator may therefore avail himself of the assistance of persons specially skilled on any point wherever he may feel he stands in need of it. At the same time he must not place a blind and implicit faith in the opinion so given him, but only use it in forming his own judgment; and the obtaining of such assistance will not relieve him from his obligation to hear evidence on the points in question.

If a legal arbitrator be objected to, and a layman be appointed, either party may successfully object to his employing an attorney to sit with and advise him. Even if he employ an accountant, he must give the parties an opportunity of objecting.

Where there are two lay and one legal arbitrators, the laymen must not leave it entirely to the lawyer to decide even the points of law, so as to surrender their own opinions to his, but must only make use of his superior legal knowledge to aid them in forming their own decisions. (Sharp v. Howell, 6, C.B., 253.)

*This applies to judicial duties only, as it appears clear that acts such as the measuring of land, &c., may be performed by deputy.

It does not appear that the assistance of a skilled person to advise the arbitrator need necessarily be sought with the knowledge of the parties, though it would no doubt be more judicious on the arbitrator's part not to conceal the fact from them.

CHAPTER VI.

OF JOINT ARBITRATORS AND UMPIRES-PROVISIONS OF NEW ARBITRATION ACT-APPOINTMENT OF UMPIRE MUST BE SIGNED BY BOTH ARBITRATORS TOGETHER JOINT ARBITRATORS MUST FORM THEIR OWN OPINIONS INDEPENDENTLY-SHOULD NOT BE TOO STUBBORN-ACTS OF JOINT ARBITRATORS INVALID UNLESS DONE IN CONCERT -IF THIRD PERSON TO BE APPOINTED, ALL ACTS OF JOINT ARBITRATORS INVALID UNTIL APPOINTMENT MADE "UMPIRE," PROPERLY SO CALLED SOMETIMES NAMED IN SUBMISSION MUST DECIDE ON ALL POINTS,

I

IF ON ANY PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS ACTS AS TO UMPIRES-COMMENCEMENT AND LIMIT OF TIME FOR MAKING AWARD BY UMPIREPROVISIONS OF LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT IN EVENT OF UMPIRE FAILING TO MAKE AWARD- METHOD OF PROCEDURE UNDER METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS ACT-UMPIRE MUST NOT TAKE EVIDENCE FROM NOTES OF ARBITRATORS SOMETIMES SITS WITH ARBITRATORS -IF SO, MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH THEM.

HAVE now dealt fully with the duties and powers of

the single arbitrator, and propose next to consider the points specially affecting the offices of joint arbitrators, and of umpire, i. e. a person appointed to decide between two arbitrators, it being a common practice for the submission to provide that the plaintiff and defendant shall each appoint an arbitrator. Formerly, by the Common Law Procedure Act it was provided that,

"When the reference is to two arbitrators, and the terms of the document authorising it do not show that it was intended there should not be an umpire, or provide otherwise for the appointment of an umpire, the two arbitrators may appoint an umpire at any time within the period during which they have power to make award, unless they be called upon by notice as aforesaid (i. e. by a notice in writing from any party) to make the appointment sooner."

The appointment of an umpire, when in writing, will be invalid unless signed by both arbitrators together.

Now in England and Wales, under the Arbitration Act, 1889, clause 5, sub-sections c and d, it is provided as follows:

(c.)

"Where the parties or two arbitrators are at liberty to appoint an umpire or third arbitrator and do not appoint him:

(d.) Where an appointed umpire or third arbitrator refuses to act, or is incapable of acting, or dies, and the submission does not show that it was intended that the vacancy should not be supplied, and the parties or arbitrators do not supply the vacancy:

any party may serve the other parties or the arbitrators, as the case may be, with a written notice to appoint an arbitrator, umpire, or third arbitrator.

If the appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice, the Court or a judge may, on application by the party who gave the notice, appoint an arbitrator, umpire, or third arbitrator, who shall have the like powers to act in the reference and make an award as if he had been appointed by consent of all parties."

Where there are three or more arbitrators, and no clause empowering a majority of them to give a binding decision, each must act as if he were sole arbitrator; for the office being joint, if one omit to act, any decision by the remainder is invalid.

All remarks made in the last chapter as to illegality of a single arbitrator surrendering his opinion to that of another person, apply with equal force to joint arbitrators and to umpires, who must not allow themselves to give an opinion, or agree to any particular decisions, simply because it is that of their colleagues; nor must they agree beforehand to be bound by the decision of any one particular person. Nevertheless, I need hardly point out that it is the duty of all so situated to hold their minds open to honest conviction, whether by argument or otherwise, and that nothing is to be more avoided by all persons holding judicial or semi-judicial functions, than stubbornness.

It is especially worthy of note that nothing done by joint arbitrators will hold good, unless done by all in concert. Thus, every arbitrator must be present at every meeting, to render the proceedings valid.

It has been before mentioned that, where the submission requires the appointment of a third person by the joint arbitrators before they proceed with the reference, all proceedings taken before such appointment is made. are invalid.

Even where an award made by two out of three arbitrators is to hold good, the third must be appointed before any steps are taken, so that the parties may have the benefit of the judgment of all three. The two first appointed must not look upon the third merely as an umpire, to be appointed and called in in case of difference between them. But it may, of course, be that the intention of the submission is for the third arbitrator to be called in to decide, in the event of the first two not agreeing in an award, and it is then that he will properly be styled an "umpire."

The umpire is sometimes named in the submission, but it is more usual to leave his appointment to the arbitrators; and they must remember that the umpire is to act as between the parties, and not between themselves. Thus, they must not require the umpire's decision on one point of disagreement; but if they cannot agree on all points, they must refer it to the umpire to decide on all points, unless they are especially empowered by the terms of the submission to act otherwise.

In the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845; the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845; the Railway Companies Arbitration Act, 1859, and the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the provisions are nearly identical, and are to the effect that, where more than one arbitrator has been appointed, they shall, before entering