CHEAP AND SIMPLE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19013, 8 November 1923, Page 8

CHEAP AND SIMPLE.

LEGAL PROCEDURE IN NORWAY. LAWYERS ENGAGE IN COMMERCIAL WORK. The work of the Court of Conciliation rii Norway was explained before the Law Reform Commission at a sitting in Adelaide recently. Mr Hans Knutson said there was a great difference between the Norwegian and Danish law. The Court of Conciliation had been in existence in Norway for over 100 years. All civil cases (including matrimonial ones) and small debt claims had to be submitted to it. Each litigant paid Is and the arbitrators received Is for each case. There was a court of this description in each district. There were two arbiters for each district. The councils nominated six citizens of undoubted integrity, and from these the enfranchised public voted for two, who were forthwith elected for two years. No lawyers could be employed in the Court of Conciliation, and unless they appeared as the actual climant or defendant in a case they could not be heard. The fundamental principle of Norwegian justice was common sense. The method of dealing with matrimonial causes, sa,id Mr Knutsen, was very simple, and obviated the necessity of the parties “washing their dirty linen” in public. If a couple desired a divorce they went to the Conciliation Court, where the arbiters could grant a separation extending over a period of three years, during which time the couple lived apart. At the end of that time they came before the court again, and if the circumstances were unchanged and divorce was still desired, that matter was referred to the King, who granted the divorce. This was wa -’ billing matrimonial troubles. The divorce was not hurried, and the parties had ample time to think ever the matter. All proceedings in the court were entirely private. If the parties were not willing to abide by the decision of the arbiters they could attend the court and say so, when the case would be referred to the Supreme Court. The evidence given in the Conciliation Court was entirely without prejudice, and Mr Knutsen could see no reason why such a court should not be successful in South Australia. People were not afraid to go to suen courts. There were ho Governmentappointed officials under the Norwegian system, under which people could "talk out” their differences. In many cases a petson summoned before the ’Conciliation Court must attend, and abide by the iudgment 5) ven default. The electors who chose the officials were not enfranchised until they were 36 years of age. Debt, divorce, and slander all came under the head of civil litigation. All civil caees must- go before the Conmliation Court, but either party a further trial, and refuse to submit to judgment if they staled so before the case was hoard. Under the Danish system, said Mr Knutoen, the statistics showed that 97 per cent, of the cases dealt with in the Conciliation Court were settled. More than 50 per cent, of such cases in Norway were settled. The jury system had been established in that country 20 years ago, and was exceedingly unpopular. He attributed this to the fact that it was cumbersome and expensive, and that was a feeling that a jury was inclined to bs ruled more by matters of sentiment than of law and fact. There were three courts in Norway apart from that of conciliation, but evidence was only taken in the primary courts, the others concerning themselves wit,h questions of law. Lawyers did a great deal more commercial work than was customary here, and acted to a large extent as land and estate agents. In this manner the cost of the transferring of property were considerably reduced; and, moreover, there was a greater feeling of legal security than would be possible otherwise.

WORK,