From: UsePlainText@dog.edu   
      
   This is about anglo-society/common law; so don't tell me that   
   "your particular statutes don't apply".   
      
   I read that:   
      
   >In the case of Smith v Brummer 1954 (3) SA 352 (O), default   
   >judgment was refused on a counterclaim because it was held that   
   >the claim in convention and the claim in reconvention were too   
   >closely interconnected and there was a danger that a subsequent   
   >investigation of the claim in convention could disclose that   
   >the default judgment had been wrongly granted.   
   ------------   
   I'm well convinced by observation that law-people attempt to   
   mutually hide their mistakes, as a profession, except when they   
   are in opposition; but is it normal to *publicly hold* that   
   justice is to be denied if it "could disclose that the default   
   judgment had been wrongly granted"?  Usually they just make up   
   some more peecee/sanatised explanation.   
   ------   
   And related to 'Courts not wanting to expose a previous wrong   
   decision', here's my complex matter:-   
   My pro-se/ed default judgment set-aside application was refused   
     on the basis of events that happened AFTER the dj.   
   The appeal judges acknowledged that events AFTER a judgment   
   cannot justify such judgment, by substituting their own new,   
    different grounds.   
   These new grounds were NOT in the record, and I was consequently   
   denied due process opportunity to also rebut them/it.   
   An attorney [who knows municipal law well] brought a second   
   set-aside application, on grounds that 'the charge was void   
   ab origine'.   
   That magistrate did not deny the 'voidness', but as grounds for   
   refusal, wrote that .   
      
   === My argument is that the second/independant reason was NOT   
   necessary, because the first application and appeal was sufficient   
   and should NOT have been refused. But in order to evaluate *THAT*   
   argument, the Court would have to look at the original appeal.   
      
   I fear that a second appeal cannot base their finding on the fact   
   that the first appeal wrongly concluded that "3+4=6", even if the   
   second appeal Court can see that "3+4=6" is FALSE.   
      
   Ie. that the first appeal's written  is   
   wrong, doesn't matter: "3+4=6" has become a 'fact in law'.   
   A wrong finding, can only be overturned by a HIGHER   
   [prohibitively expensive] Court.   
      
   Is that the reasoning in the above case of Smith v Brummer 1954?   
      
   == TIA.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)