The Poverty Bay Herald AND East Coast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. Saturday, November 8, 1879.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 945, 8 November 1879, Page 2

The Poverty Bay Herald AND East Coast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. Saturday, November 8, 1879.

Our legislature, having been useful m greatly simplifying and cheapening the conveyancing of land under the " Land Transfer Act," better known as " Torrens' Act," has gone farther by its intention to simplifiy, and cheapen procedures m the Supreme Courts of the Colony. Last year, an Act was passed m the General Assembly, which will pi*obably result m the business taken to the Supreme Court being as simple as it now is m England, if indeed it will not he shown to be much, simpler. In accor- J dance with the powers granted m the Act referred to, the Supreme Court Judges have prepared a set of rules, which, after they have been fully discussed, revised, and amended, will receive the force of law. Wheii these rules are adopted, the practice m the Supreme Courts will assimilate nearly to the procedure m our District Courts. What the community has a right to demand is that the course of justice shall be unimpeded by any unnecessary obstacle — that its administration shall be simple, speedy, cheap, and efficient. This we now have (a few kinds of action excepted), provided the claim be not over .£2OO, by going into the Resident Magistrate's or District Courts, where demurrers and rules nisi are unknown, and where the words " declaration," " plea," "replication," " rejoinder," and so forth, are never heard. To the ordinary mind the practice of the D ; strict Courts seems certainly the most reasonable mode of settling a dispute. The plaintiff states m writing what his grievance is and what he claims, files it m the Court, and serves a copy with a summons on the defendant. The defendant files a defence, if he intends to dispute the plaintiff's claim, and serves a copy on the plaintiff. They then go before the Judge, and have their dispute settled. Should either party desire it, the facts are found by a jury ; but if not, the Judge decides both facts and law. A summons from the District Court carries with it none of those vague forebodings of ruin that make a writ so terrible as often to induce a man to pay an unjust claim rather than face the expense of a. defence. The amount of costs allowed m the District Court is fixed by statute ; why should they not be fixed m the same manner m the Supreme Court 1 We quite agree with the New Zealand Law Society that both appearance and demurrer can be easily dispensed with. Would it not be advisable to go further than they do, however, m the matter of juries 1 They would have it at the option of the parties whether a jury be empanelled or not. We confess to a traditional prejudice m favour of juries ; but still the question forces itself upon us whether this feature of the District Court might not be improved upon. With the integrity and ability of our Supreme Court Judges, might not juries m civil cases be abolished altogether with advantage? There are not a few persons who believe they could be ; and they argue as follows m support of their position : A number of men (say they) are drawn from occupations which have m no way fitted them for " brawling courts and dusty purlieus of the law," and asked to perform duties which require a special training for their effectual discharge. The Judge does his best, after they have got pretty well mixed, to give them a fair view of the points they have to decide m what is called the " summing up." They go off to the jury-room, and some of them having a leaning towards the plaintiff, they often effect a compromise, and come back to Court with a most absurd and inconsistent verdict. There immediately follows a rule nisi for a new trial, the verdict being against the weight of evidence. The Judge, accustomed to weigh evidence, has no doubt all along wondered how the jury ever came to auch a decision with such evidence before them, and the rule is made absolute. So on it goes. Justice (say they) would be more fairly and more cheaply administered without juries. No doubt there would be a great loss of forensic eloquence for there is a rule recognised m the profession that you must not talk nonsense to the Judge ; but, perhaps, after all the community may suffer the loss, and still remain civilised. We have no doubt that the abolition of juries would be hailed with delight by unfortunates who are compelled to neglect their business and interfere against their will m other men's J quarrels. We are m entire sympathy with the snggestion that litigants should be permitted to settle their disputes m a lower Court by consent. At present a plaintifffrequently waives a portion of his claim to bring his case into the District Court rather than go into the Supreme Court. And we have no doubt that if the law allowed it, defendants, if they had confidence m the Judge, would generally prefer to appear m the lower Court. We hope, however, soon to see the proceedings m the two Courts so similar, that we shall not require to have sitting m the same place both a Supreme Court and a District Court. In these changes the interests of the | members of the legal profession are m

no way likely to suffer. People m dispute with each other will not fear carrying their cases to Court on the ground of the ruinous expense, from which cause justice is only too frequently defeated. There will, doubtless, be a large increase m the number of litigants, because the cost will be less, and the certainty of speedy decisions more assured. Probably lawyers will be benefitted by the proposed alterations/