FREY & ZUSLI, a Swiss Firm Transacting Mercantile Business in Liberia, by and through its Agents, RUTHEL & SALEEBY, and RICHARD HAIKAL, Appellants, o. JOSEPHINE L. GIBSON, JOHN R. SCOTLAND, J. VICTOR SCOTLAND, and FRANCIS H. GIBSON, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MARYLAND COUNTY. Argued March 31, 1959. Decided April 24, 1959. 1. When an appellee fails to appear at a hearing of a case on appeal, the appellate court may proceed to determine the case on the arguments of appellant’s counsel 2. Where a judge has acted as counsel for a party in a case under adjudication, the judge is disqualified from participating in the judicial determination of the case, and a decision therein in which the judge has participated will be reversed and remanded for new trial. On appeal from a decree rendered on a bill in equity for cancellation of a lease agreement, reversed and remanded for new trial. J. Dossen Richards for appellants. No appearance for appellees. MR. JUSTICE WARDSWORTH delivered the opinion of the Court.* The above-entitled cause was heard and determined by His Honor, James A. A. Pierre, then Circuit Judge presiding by assignment, in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Maryland County, at its February, 1955, term. Judgment in said case was entered in favor of petitioners-appellees. Respondents-appellants excepted and prayed an appeal to this Court for review and final ” Mr. Justice Pierre was absent because of illness and took no part in this case. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 409 adjudication. Subsequent to the filing of appellants’ appeal, an application for the remand of the case for new trial was filed on May 14, 1957. At the call of the case, respondents-appellants’ counsel insisted on the hearing of their application hereinabove referred to. Counsel for appellees placed on record the following: “Counsellor D. B. Cooper respectfully informs the Court that he has been carrying the interest of petitioners-appellees in this case, but for reason good and sufficient, which he communicated to them, he would not be willing to represent them further in the matter until and unless he heard from them. Since that time Mr. Francis Gibson, who appeared to be the leading factor, on their behalf had died. His widow wrote to D. B. Cooper requesting him to continue to carry their interest. In reply to this letter, the terms upon which he would be further willing to represent them were communicated to said widow of Francis Gibson. Since then he has not heard from her, and not knowing if she had had notice of the assignment of this matter, in the interest of fair play and justice, he is hereby humbly and justly praying this Court to postpone the hearing of the matter until the Easter vacation–at which time he will write to her, Mrs. Gibson, informing her of the assignment, and send her a copy of respondents-appellants’ application, together with his professional advice as a friend and relative by affinity.” The Court, being unwilling to hear and dispose of the application under review without notice of assignment to petitioners-appellees, although they were represented of record by Counsellor D. B. Cooper, directed the clerk of this Court to communicate with the petitioners-appellees by radiogram, informing them that the case is definitely assigned for the 31st instant, and that they should appear and defend if they so desired. Accordingly, the matter was again called for hearing on Tuesday, March 31, 1959 410 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS when petitioners-appellees failed to appear either in person or by counsel. Thereupon the Court proceeded to hear argument of counsel for respondents-appellants on the application submitted for the remand of the case. For the benefit of this opinion, we quote hereunder the relevant portion of the application for remand of the case for new trial, as follows: “1. Because respondent-appellant says that he has not had a fair, legal and impartial trial, in that the trial. Judge, His. Honor, James A. A. Pierre, then a Circuit Judge, was of counsel for petitionersappellees prior to his elevation to the bench, as is evidenced by a letter dated January 1, 1951, addressed to respondents-appellants touching the same subject-matter of the cancellation case which the said trial Judge presided over, heard and determined, which letter is hereunder quoted word for word as follows : ” ‘HENRIES’ LAW FIRM 31 BENSON STREET MONROVIA, LIBERIA WEST AFRICA. January 16th, 1951 ” ‘MESSRS. FREY & ZUSLI HARPER CITY CAPE PALMAS. ” ‘DEAR SIRS: ” ‘Under the terms of an agreement of lease entered into between your company and the heirs of the late Gilbert Gibson for the lease of the property you now occupy, it was stipulated that your company would remain in occupancy for a definite term of years. Nowhere in the said agreement is it indicated that the lessees would have the right to sublet the premises. ” ‘It would seem that, in spite of the expressed terms of the aforesaid agreement, and although LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 411 the lessors have fulfilled to the satisfaction of the lessees the terms as laid down in said agreement, and have so guaranteed the undisputed occupancy of said leased premises to the lessees, yet the lessees desire to sublet the said premises, which right is not given them in the agreement. ” ‘The aforesaid heirs of the late Gilbert Gibson, through Mr. John Scotland, have asked that this office handle the matter in respect of any attempt on your part to violate the terms of the agreement herein mentioned. This will therefore give you legal notice that, in the event you sublet the aforesaid premises, which would be contrary to the said agreement, then and in that case the lessors reserve the right to avail themselves of their rights under the law. ” ‘Very truly yours, For Henries Law Firm, [Sgd.] JAMES A. A. PIERRE Attorney-at-Law’ “2. Respondent-appellant further submits that, at the time of the trial of the case, this fact was unknown to him, and that it was not so known until the return of the agent, Mr. Bulliger who, at the time of � the trial, was out of the country and in whose possession said letter was; therefore the fact could not properly have been raised at the trial. “3. Respondent-appellant says that the trial Judge, having acted as counsel for one of the parties to the cause, was legally disqualified because of interest and should have voluntarily recused himself. Respondent-appellant further submits that, since the said trial Judge should have been disqualified, his judgment rendered in said case under the circumstances is void.” As observed, supra, petitioners-appellees neglected and failed, although duly notified, to appear and defend their 412 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS interest by means of resisting the application of respondents-appellants, subject of these proceedings. Moreover, it is a universally conceded and well settled principle of law, that one who acts as counsel or adviser to a party in an action thereby legally deprives himself of the right to preside in said matter for an impartial judicial determination thereof. This law contemplates that parties litigant should enjoy an atmosphere of cool neutrality in the dispensing of transparent justice. In view of the foregoing, it is obvious that respondentsappellants are entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, the application is hereby granted, judgment reversed, and the matter remanded for new trial without delay; costs to abide final determination. And it is so ordered. Reversed and remanded.