to him obtaining a Bachelor of Arts in 1904, and an LL.B. with second-class honours in 1907. He was a Wigram Allen Scholar in 1904 and a George and Matilda Harris Scholar in 1905. Jordan was admitted to the New South Wales Bar on 19 August 1907 and practised from Selborne Chambers. He primarily practised in equity work. He took silk as a King's Counsel in 1928. He also lectured part-time in the law school of the University of Sydney. He married Bertha Maud Clay on 9 January 1928 at St Stephen's Presbyterian Church, on Macquarie Street, Sydney. Judicial career Jordan was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 1 February 1934 in succession to Sir Philip Street. Jordan had not been a judge before his appointment and at the time had been a senior equity barrister in New South Wales. He was Chief Justice between 1934 and 1949. This was a difficult time for the court with a shortage of resources and manpower due to the Second World War, although Jordan's administrative skills helped the court through this period. He was appointed KCMG in 1936, two years after his appointment as Chief Justice. Jordan was dominant when presiding on a Full Court, with a reputation for being remote, devoid of "human passions and that he was only at home when plumbing the depths of Equity or when writing judgments replete with citation of authority and exposition of legal principle" and whose public utterances were said to be limited to "a few well-frozen words". Decisions Jordan in his time as Chief Justice sat on many cases. Perhaps the most notable case was Commissioner of Railways v Small. This case involved the issuing of a subpoena to a person not involved in the court proceedings. A subpoena issued in these circumstances is usually called a "fishing expedition" as the legal counsel involved in issuing the subpoena is fishing around for evidence that may or may not be there. The following passage is often cited in court decisions around Australia where Jordan said: "The writ of subpoena duces tecum may be addressed to a stranger to the case or to a party. If it be addressed to a stranger, it must specify with reasonable particularity the documents which are required to be produced. A subpoena duces tecum ought not to be issued to such a person requiring