ORDER Young, J.
1. This is a petition by the respondent alleging that on 24th December 1931 he wrote a letter to Capt. Carleton, Barrister who now appears for the petitioner, engaging him in the case and giving him confidential information which might prejudice the respondent if Capt. Carleton continued to act for the petitioner. He asks that an order should be made prohibiting Capt. Carleton from appearing in the case. I have read the letter of 24th December and there is nothing whatever in the letter which would prejudice the respondent if Capt. Carleton appears for the petitioner. The petition is for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. There is nothing in the letter alluding to the respondent's defence upon this charge. He merely refers to complaints that he has against his wife and he desired to take action so that he might obtain custody of the children. The letter did not difinitely engage counsel's services. Capt. Carleton offered a consultation to the respondent in reply to this letter, but he thereafter sent a telegram cancelling the appointment and suggesting the next day instead, that is brd January. The respondent did not answer the telegram or keep the appointment. He thereafter in the month of March engaged a pleader of Chunar to act for him in the matter of the custody of his children. Capt. Carleton was thereupon engaged by the petitioner for the divorce suit.
2. This is an absurd petition. A great ideal has to take place before counsel can be said to be engaged by a party to a suit, so that it would be unprofessional for him to appear on the other side. In order to prevent counsel appearing for the other party, he must have a definite retainer with a fee paid or he must have had such confidential information from one of the parties as would make it improper for him to appear for the other party. Nothing of this sort has occurred here. There is nothing of a confidential nature in the letter of 24th December which would prejudice the respondent if Capt. Carleton appears for the petitioner. If this sort of letter acted as a bar to counsel appearing for the opposite party, nothing would be simpler for a prospective litigant than to write to all the leading counsel in the Court a letter such as this. He need not have the slightest intention of engaging any of them. The petition is rejected.