SERIOUS CHANGE IN ACT

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2162, 30 May 1914, Page 6

SERIOUS CHANGE IN ACT

JUDGE'S COMMENT

"THE GUISE OF CONSOLIDATION." (Sy T«lezT4Sh.*-Pms Assoc le.tfcn.) Dunedln, May 23. Tliis morning Mr! Jwtico Sim delivered judgment in a.- matter of arbitration between Frederick Beadoti Bryant and fitters and Robert M'Arthur Thomson and James Hunter Thomson, This was an application under Section 6 oj the Arbitration Act, 1908, for the appointment of an umpire. _ Arbitrators, appointed to settle questions in regard to tho lease of a parcel of land, Were unable to a-gtoe oh tjio Appointment of an umpire, ami the Ot'iirt was asked to raafeo the appointment. In the course of a lengthy judgment, His Honour said that a serious aitorntio.ii has been mado by the Ac-i of 1908. Tho definition of "submission" in the Aet of 1880 means a written agrcdrnwt to suba.it present Or future differences to arbitration, whether the arbitrator is named or not. This is tie definition in the- Aet of 1908: "Stißraissioa means a written agreement to submit present- or future differences. to arbitration, tthotijer the arbitrator is named therein or Sat, or tuttkr which any, qne& tiofi or matter is to be decided "by one or mora persons to bo appointed by tlio contracting parties, or by bosio pcy-Soft named in the BgrcSmen't." l?io&5 additional words (said His Honoui) considerably alter the S0»p& of- the Act, and appear to bring under its provisions all written agreements for/ valuations. The t result is that, unless otherwise agreed*; reference must be conchicted at arbitral ion under tho provisions of tile Act. It is not necessary for an empire to b(< himself a valuer, It- is rather startling to find that such a change in this law should havtf been effected in 'the guise of consolidation, It is not referred to in the final report ■ of the Consolidation Ccnitrrissioners, and this fact suggests that tiw change was n!sde_ without their knowledge. The omission must have been, made deliberately, and by sotne person who was so ignorant of tho subject of arbitration i as not to know tho difference bet-twen Jan umpire and a third arbitrator. The report made by tho Commissioners on July 28, '19QS, throws an latefcstiHg light on th® authorship of tliis change, The Arbitration Act . evidently mflst iia-Vfi Been' included in that -volante of the Consolidated Statutes which was; soujjiii tfl be imposed oil the CWrftis-' sidjisrs at tiro outset .of their labours. : •This, tlifty say, Was mote. in the nature of a code than consolidation, and entangled thess in ranch needless labour. Tlioy -haci, to -spaji-d. nwC-h time and trouble iii revising and restoring the test of tho Acts. . The present condition of tfifs Arbitration Act shows plainly that their efforts in this direction Were not always s-uecestfi.il How ma-tiv more similar "imwwohtenfei" ■have beei'i made suiwitjMonsl? in, the Statute £iaw of'the iainl ti:Kc alone will disclose.