SUPREME COURT JOTTINGS.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 271, 13 November 1909, Page 8

SUPREME COURT JOTTINGS.

NOTES FROM THE PRESS BOX. The civil sessions conclude, for the present, to-day. All civil business not disposed of is postponed until after the criminal sessions. Here is an interesting legal sidelight on the law from Mr. i\ Earl:—"l am not prepared to argue the non-suit points, your Honor. I thought we were going to settle this case on its merits." In several divorce cases which have occupied the attention of the judge during yesterday and to-day no proper proof of service upon respondents was included amongst the papers. When the judge drew attention to this, counsel replied that they would call evidence. "Proof of service should be given by affidavit," the judge replied. "When proof by affidavit can be given by affidavit, it must be. I won't have my time wasted taking evidence." The criminal sessions start on Monday at 11 a.m. A notable feature in connection therewith is that Mr. Justice Edwards will not preside. Urgent business calls him to Wellington, and in his place Mr. Justice Cooper, who will arrive in Auckland on Sunday morning, will preside. Mr. Justice Edwards will on Monday morning at 10 o'clock sentence prisoners who have pleaded guilty in the lower court. Subsequently his Hcnor will hear argument in Chambers on the nonsuit point raised by Mr. J. R, Reed on Thursday in the suit of Forrest v. the Ohinemuri County Council, a claim for £ 1128 1/5 for services rendered and work done. "Time is running on, and life is short. Don't say more tian you are asked to say. Confine yourself to answering the questions -put to you." Thus Mr. Justice Edwards to a witness. There are many kinds of witnesses. There are nervous witnesses, there are crafty witnesses, there are witnesses to whom the kissing of the Book is a solemn farce. There are, above all, loquacious witnesses devoured with the desrre to make a speech whenever they open their mouths. Such witnesses are not wanted in the Supreme Court. Their enthusiasm is sternly suppressed. The witness box is not a rostrum whence persuasive tongues may harangue the multitude. It i* very literally a matter-of-fact proposition, and those who forget it are likely to suffer. Yesterday quite a number of connubial knots were untied. Some more were untied to-day. Really, divorce is becoming quite fashionable. It ought to get a mention on the front page of the newspapers. There we read of births, marriages, and denths. It was suggested some time ngo that engagements also should be thus recorded—that to the hatches, matches, and dispatches should be added catches. Xow it is time to add "laches" as well. The number of divorce cases which come up session after session is certainly an alarming and an unhealthy sign. And, alas! what sordid and utterly miserable stories of cruelty, of faithlessness, of unhappiness are unfolded on those occasions. It is one more disenchanting experience. But, oh, the pity of it all!

The judge was again engaged this morning in hearing petitions in divorce. The proceedings opened rather stormily, Mr. J. R. Lundpn's cases were called on yesterday, but he was out of town, and the cases had to. be postponed until today. This was the subject of sharp comment by the judge this morning. "These cases," he said, ,; were dealt with yesterday. I may as well say plainly, for the information of the Law Society, that in future I shall absolutely refuse, except under very exceptional and unforeseen circumstances, to hear excuses from counsel for their non-attendance in Court when their cases are called. I try to show as much consideration to the bar as I can. Some counsel show scant consideration for mc. Counsel seem to show no respect . for their engagements in Court." Mr. Lundon replied that he was away in the Far North and did not know. '"It is your business to know when cases are coming on," retorted the judge. "If counsel choose to go away to the Ear North that is their concern, not mine."

More care is, wanted in drawing pleadings. What are "pleadings"? says the man in the street. Well, pleadings are the statements of claim or defence filed by counsel at the Supreme Court prior to the hearing of an action. These pleadings are filed for the information of each other, and perhaps, also, for the information of the judge, who wants to know something about the surface merits of the case he is going to try. In a case hoard the other day the statement of defence was, as to one clause at any rate, ambiguous. "A great deal more care is required in drawing pleadings," quoth the judge. "A great deal . too much carelessness is shown. It is impossible to know what this statement means." Mr. Earl, who, obviously, was on the other side, concurred. "It is impossible," he exclaimed indignantly, "to gather the veal point at issue." The judge expressed fuTther regret. "Did you draw this pleading?" he asked, addressing Mr. J. R. Reed. The learned president of the Law Society was scandalised. "Oh, no, your Honor!" he replied. It transpired that a rural solicitor was the culprit. "You can't expect solicitors in the country to be accomplished pleaders," retorted the judge; "but in cases where they do not know how to raise a point they should consult counsel in town."

The essayist Hazlitt telh us that corporate bodies have no soul. Mr. Justice Edwards goes one better, and reminds us that "public bodies have neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned." This apropos of the charming way in which, with the most refreshing insouciance, they will occasionally keep people waiting for money due to them. ■ A matter comes up for consideration, some point is raised ■which members want to shirk, so the whole thing is hung up for a month or more. "Postponed for consideration until the next meeting," exclaims the chairman, and straightway they pass to the next, business. Meanwhile some poor contractor, who hae done his work •nd wante his money for some other

enterprise, has to wait, and perhaps 1 loses business. But it is not only public bodies, who are at fault. Public; officials are also amongst the sinners. The other day a county engineer made deductions from the accepted contract price of a job, and tried to justify doing so on the ground that he had allowed something for extras. He did not tell the contractor of these deductions, but sent to his council a certificate for the payment of a sum less than the price agreed upon originally. Waturally, the contractor objected. Counsel attempted to argue that th? plaintiffs were debarred by their contract from raising any question regarding deductions and • extras as ' estimated by the engineer. The Judge was very severe. *'I hope you are not contending that an engineer may disregard the terms of his contract," he observed. "It is a very grave breach of duty on the part of an engineer not to put everything in writing. It is his bounden duty to give notice to the contractor. He can't say, 'I will disregard the contract, but you are bound by it.' It is the duty of an engineer .to act judicially. He has no right to disallow charges without giving the contractor an opportunity to justify them. You might as well suggest that I should give judgments in this Court without hearing both sides." In the course of the same case it transpired that architects make contractors pay 1J per cent for copies of plans. "They used to charge 2£ per cent," commented the Judge. "They used to make a secret of it then. Now they charge 1£ per cent, and do it openly." And these same architects had better learn to be businesslike. "Architects and engineers," complained the Judge, "are in the habit of varying the terms of a contract in a very slipshod manner. They should comply strictly with the terms of their contracts." Here also is an interesting point. If something appears in an engineer's specifications, it forms part of the contract; if it only appears on the contractor's estimate or schedule, it does not.