VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.)

Evening Post, Volume X, Issue 194, 3 October 1874, Page 2

VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.)

The Matter »nd; Owners oi the steamship \"]\ Stormbirtf v. the Master, Qwnerg, and ' "" Consignees of. the ship Stnthnaveiv - Mr Gordon Allan appeared, foirii tae salvors, and Mr Travera and Mr MoochomW for the defendants. 1' r • ; • I .' -fas'* • The sitting, which lasted an homv-wss entirely occupied -in discussing the forms of procedure necewary to- be adopted. It appeared, as .|be diacossion. progressed, that tberV tth very great difficulty to laying down any ral« «< »U for» eoane wWcfi

should not be liable to be impugned subsequently foi irregularity, all the prescribed forms for N«sw Zealand Vice-Admiralty procedure icing based upon the antiquated practice of the English High Court of Admiralty (Utterly amended by statute), which cla- sed ecclesiastical offences, wijl caacs, divo-ce suits, and ship matters, a.l under one jurisdiction. It was nhovm that the prescri oed mode of procedure, although cotnparath ely __ simple and practicable when th< CoUrfc, as at home, was continualh' in session de die in diem, was inconvenient and costly in the extreme, anc almost impracticable where, as in this C 8 3e, the Vice- Admiralty sittings were only at long intervals. Jt was suggested that some modification might be effected in the procedure, and that rigid adherence to the rules might be to a certain extent dispensed with, and some departure from the established practice permitted >y consent of both parties. His Honor, however, although most willing to assist counsel in Bvery way in His pdWer and to mould the rules in accordance with local circumstance?, held that it was imperative on them to observe the rules strictly, otherwise the proceedings subsequently might be impugned by any dissatisfied party to the action. He was upheld in this View by a letter he had just received from the-Gnief Justice) who informed him that, similar difficulties had arisen in the Auckland Vice- Admiralty Court, and that both the Bench and the Bar had been forced to tbe conclusion that it was imperative on the Court to observe .the strict; rales laid down fßr its procedure. These were very peculiar, and retained a strong savour of antiquity. Each witness was to be examined privately and secretly by the Registrar of the Court (having been previously sworn before the Judge, who was not to be pf9seiiE at -the elimination) by means of written " interrogatories," the evidence to be given in proof of the " libel" (a species of Writ?) served by the plaintiffs on the defendants. The examination was to be conducted by the Registrar, the counsel or *• proctors" for the respective parties not being .allowed to, be, present. ; Each witness having been examined in this secret manner, was not to be .allowed to disclose the evidence be had given, and 1 moreover was to be detained in a sort of custody or 1 , on '¦pftrole^ui&er 'jJettal l^ of attachment for contempt of Court) for 24 hours after he - had betta examined in case the proctors required any further interrogatories to be put to him. The written evidence of each witness on completion was to be sealed up until a certain time, when " publication" would take place, or, in other words, the evidence be communicated to the defendants for the purpose of enabling them to put in a "responsive allegation " preliminary to going into their case. His Honor remarked that he often had feared a case of this sort would arise before steps had been taken to simplify the ViceAdmiralty jurisdiction of New Zealand. The Imperial Government was very willing to aid in this direction, but nothing could be done without concurrence among all the Australian colonies and he thought a Congress would offer the best means of obtaining that. At present they were fettered by the antiquated forms from which the mother country now was emancipated, and not only so but they had to grope along" it the dark as it were to find out what really was the proper procedure at all. Hie Honor added that he should be glad of all the assistance the bar could give him in the difficulty. The counsel present, Messrs Tra> vers, Allan, Moorhouse, and Izard, all entered into the d'scussien at some length, commenting on the procedure and making various _»uggesjbions_ j£ to the course to be *a3o"pted. ~ ' '~ i His Honor said it appeared that the <firsl step to be taken was to arrange when! the evidenci'in proof of the " libel " should be given before the Registrar. _ ;.Mr Travirs/askedwhicli case was before the Comjfr? uTihere were.no fewe« than 3C distinct cases;* that number of libels having been ißsped ;and he should claim, that each lease be taken separately on its own merits, as any jspne.u consignee could .not: be ¦Jbound by the action of any other, or of the .captain of thexßhip. : ¦ ,j, i ; . Mr Allan contended : that , the whole) Sfc ;caßes ought to be considered; as one, and .taken collectively. Jlisff Honor remarked- that the »cotir& taken by.MrjTir^yers wooid -involve ithe Whole evidence of every witness.being taken in full -for each of the; 30 cases. It waff a matter for^serioUs considdratJion whether this could not be avoided in any way. It would cause grave opprobrium to attach to jthcvCpaEt.if it.aujbhprised needlessly a procedure wMcH/musb render the Coats bo enormously heavier than . otherwise would ,' be' necessary. "^ '„„.,>', 'Mr " Tiavers said ," he appeared for the captain,' ship, and' cargo. Which was now being proceeded against?. , -, n_r^llansaict all.^lb reel. , . Sl ,. ,. t . His Hdnpr considered that the first qdesiio'n was— did' any of 'the defendants oppose the "libel?" ; If. not; ifc was one step forward tnat the "libel" shoald Denoted as admitted.- , j { - . ,- . 'Both counsel for the defendants agreed thattHe " libel"' should be admitted. His Honor thought, f it very important ' that if poSSibjia the Ceurt should be able! to give its, deciwori before the sitting of the .Court of" Appeal, which would take place on tbeL9th November. .' • ' ; Mr Allan said he next had to ask the ¦Courts to fixi a ,day to take the svidence of jthe salvors, itx- proof 'of. the contents of the .MilibeU-" H'.'.-'.i-A- •-¦..!. -. •¦••« •: ¦' 7 v Ultimately it agreed that the con.'tebts oL the <ft libel".;, should oe iprdved within seven?.da|ys^: and a! decree extracted for peisonal answers as provided within su^ystaftetf service. >i >•;-.¦-!.. > 1 flis:HjßnoriSftid.this another diffi. ;culfcyi:namely: r ;whethec Sunday were a day in <ths.i«yel Of .the :lam . Thp difficulties they had to contend with were 1 very great, there being absolutely not a single precedent ta guide them, wj ;j . ¦' m .The: jGanrfc;^ was t then adjourned by the , Marshall^ J. Cs Crawford, Esq) until Tuesday week,; the 13th inst, at 10 a.m.