Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 657, 26 September 1884, Page 18

The Local Courts Bill introduced this session is very different to that which, under the same title, was laid before Parliament in the session of 18S2. The latter was one of the results of the deliberations of the Commission appointed to inquire into the constitution, practice, and .procedure of the various law courts of the colony, though the measure was not actually drafted until after the final report of the Commission had been

sent in. That Bill abolished the District Courts and the Resident Magistrates Courts, and provided for the establishment of new tribunals to be called Local Courts, with judges to preside over them. There were to be two divisions of the court, the jurisdiction of the higher division corresponding pretty closely to that of the District Court, and the jurisdiction of the lower to that of the Resident Magistrates Court. With all due respect to the learned gentlemen who were responsible for the Bill (we mean the commissioners and not the draftsmen, who, of course, did the work on lines laid down for them), we are compelled to express the decided opinion that had it become law it would have caused no improvement on the established order of things. What was required was to sweep away the District Courts, but the Commissioners’ Bill, though it abolished them under their old name, brought them to life again under another, and continued their civil and criminal jurisdiction in full vigour. The Bill was considerably worse than a sham, because it m some respects mixed up the law relating to what were in reality two distinct courts, gave them” one code of regulations some of which were inapplicable to the lower court, and made justice less easy of access than it had hitherto A been in the Resident Magistrates Court. The Bill did not meet with the approval of a Select Committee, which was appointed that year to take it and the Supreme Court Bill into consideration. The Government wisely let itjdropout of sightforthe timebeing. A modified Local Courts Bill was introduced in 1883, but was discharged from the Order Paper towards the close of the business. Amongst the measures brought forward by the Government in the short session preceding the dissolution, we again find a Local Courts Bill, and examination proves that in almost all its sections it is identical with Mr Stout’s Bill which is now before Parliament. But the differences between the two measures, though few, are of a very important character. As in the original plan of reform, the District Courts and the Resident Magistrates Courts are abolished, and Local Courts set up in their place. The presiding offij cers are to he called Stipendiary Magistrates, and there is to be an ordinary and an extended jurisdiction. So far both Bills are alike; but in Mr Stout’s Bill it is provided that “ no person shall he appointed to have . the extended jurisdiction unless he is a barrister or solicitor of the Supreme Court.” There was no such proviso in Mr Conolly’s Bill. Again, in the latter Bill the ordinary jurisdiction was limited to fifty pounds, and the extended jurisdiction to one hundred pounds. In Mr Stout’s Bill the ordinary jurisdiction is limited to fifty pounds, but the extended jurisdiction includes cases up to one hundred and fifty pounds. Mr Stout’s Bill, however, contains the following provision : —“ Where at the time this Act comes into force, a Resident Magistrates Court has jurisdiction up to one hundred pounds, the Governor in Council may declare that the court established under this Act, in lieu of such first mentioned court, shall have ordinary jurisdiction up to a like sum ; and in such case the provisions of this Act, applicable to ordinary jurisdiction, shall extend and apply to such court accordingly.” This is very dumsy tinkering. have before said that what was wanted was the sweeping away of the District Courts, and that Mr Conolly’s Bill did. Why he should have changed the name of the remaining court, and transmogrified our old friends the R.M. s into Stipendiary Magistrates, is best known to himself. But those little matters did not effect the substance of what was done, namely, to leave no intervening jurisdiction between the lower court and the Supreme Court. Mr Stout’s Bill, if it becomes law, will inflict on the country three degrees of Stipendiary Magistrates; firstly, some with a fifty pound jurisdiction, then some with a hundred, and finally some with one hundred and fifty, the last mentioned contingent being barristers or solicitors of the Supreme Court. It is also obvious that in the event of another town or district springing into such importance as to require a Magistrate with something above the ordinary fifty pounds jurisdiction, it will be necessary to appoint to the office a barrister or solicitor. There are no doubt plenty to be had. There are too many in the country already, and their numbers are rapidly increasing ; but sucking lawyers are not the men best qualified to sit in judg-

ment even in the lower courts, and we are quite sure that the salaries which the Legislature of New Zealand will, for many years to come, vote for [Resident Magistrates or Stipendiaries —call them what we may —will not be sufficient to tempt men of standing to throw up the practice of the law. We do not intend to give an abstract of the general provisions of the Bill, indeed it is quite unnecessary. Within the money limits we have already mentioned, the Bill gives jurisdiction over a large number of causes of action, the matters excluded being those which are at present excluded from the jurisdiction of the lower courts. It is provided that a Stipendiary Magistrate shall have the powers which may be exercised by two Justices of the Peace, and this will give him the same criminal jurisdiction as now attaches to the office of Eesident Magistrate. It does not appear that he is to have any further criminal jurisdiction. He is also to be a Coroner. The powers of a Judge in bankruptcy, and the present District Court jurisdiction under the Mines Act, 1877, and the Mining Companies Act, 1872, may be conferred on Stipendiary Magistrate having the extended jurisdiction. To Mr Conouuy’s Local Courts Bill was annexed as a schedule a very lengthy code of civil procedure. That is omitted from Mr Stout’s Bill, but power is given to the Governor in Council to make a code, and rescind or amend it from time to time as may be necessary.