The Evening Star. TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1874.

Evening Star, Issue 3560, 21 July 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star. TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1874.

Most important papers bearing on “ Proposed Law Reforms ” have been presented to the General Assembly. These consist of letters between Chief Justice Arney and the Premier, and Judge Johnston and Mr Bathgate, pro Colonial Secretary. Two main questions are discussed in the papers present—first, the codification of New Zealand laws ; and second, the cheapening and improving of the procedure in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Arney thinks that codification is at present impracticable, while at the same time he is of opinion that there may be a corsolidation of, the Statutes bearing on particular subjects. For example, the Statutes referring to the constitution, practice, and procedure of the Supremt Court may be consolidated. consolidation, however, of the Statutes relating to bankruptcy and the law of evidence is premature, and would involve a waste of time and money. Judge J ohnston has prepared two Bills—first, a Bill consolidating the existing Statutes relating to the constitution, jurisdiction, and practice of the Supreme Court; and, second, a “ rough draft as a basis for a more comprehensive enactment, founded both upon the New Zealand Statutes affecting the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, and upon the English Supreme Court of J udicature Act,” These Bills are not, however, to be introduced into the Assembly till 1875, and as the reforms proposed are not clearly stated, we must wait until we see the proposed Bills. In the correspondence, however, there are many things of interest and importance, and we need at present simply pick out one or two things worthy of notice. For example, Judge Johnston thinks any scheme of consolidation or codification should be carried out by a Commission, composed of the Ministers of tfie Crown, the Supreme Court Judges, and three professional draftsmen two probably being practising lawyers. Mr Bathgate, in his letters, complains loudly of solicitors’ costs, and of the disinclination of the people to avail themselves of the Supreme Court. One or two points in Mr Bathgate’s letter are woi'thy of consideration. He thinks no motion for a new trial should be made before a single Judge. He would desire to see

an ad valorem scale of costs ; a solicitor to be allowed to make contracts with suitors. We do not well see how the actual amount involved is any guarantee of the time taken, or costs or trouble incurred in getting a decision in law or in fact of any question, and therefore the ad valorem scale would be unworkable, except in actions for debts. We agree, however, that it would be

better were two Judges to sit for the decision of all law points. This would surely not require any great alteration of the law, for Judges might go on circuit for Banco business. As to solicitors being allowed to bargain as to costs, we do not know why they should not. Still there may be many reasons urged against it. At present, a solicitor is absolutely prohibited from making a bargain with his client, and it may be

that th«re are, consequently, aa Mr Bathgate says, steps “ multiplied in procedure for the sake of costs.” It would, however, open the door, were bargaining allowed, to all kinds of maintenance suits, and the terror of former days—champerty might be found not unfrequent. Judge Johnston, however, points out that many things tending to make litigation inexpensive have not been taken advantage of. For example, a Judge might, if it were allowed, try a case without a jury, or a jury of six might be summoned. We do not see much advantage in the minor jury sittings to which the Judge alludes. It is true there are six jurymen sitting instead of twelve ; but then the jury fees are small : ten shillings for each juryman is only three pounds, and a plaintiff or a defendant might have more faith in twelve men than in six.

The law of evidence is apparently not to be consolidated or codified until thei’e is an evidence code in England ; and in fact the Chief Justice urges the Government to follow in the wake of English reforms, while Mr Bathgate f bought the Colony “ could take a step in advance ” of the Home Parliament. At present the law of evidence in England is in advance of that of New Zealand. Judge Richmond, two years ago, commented on this fact in a case tried before him. In England, for example, an atheist may give evidence, but in New Zealand it is questionable if his evidence can be received. In actions for breach of promise of marriage, also, a plaintiff and defendant may both give evidence, but in New Zealand their mouths are stopped. Even were New Zealand to postpone codifying the law of evidence, surely these are things that might easily be amended.

To those who long for law reform the papers we have bi’ought under their notice will be interesting. One thing, however, Judge Johnston impresses on the Government : that law reform, to be successful, must be thorough. He assumes, he states, “ that the real desire and intention of the Government is not to make political capital out of a hasty, crude, ill-digested series of pretended reforms, projected for the purpose of conciliating popular favor, but to grapple with those difficulties and objections and deficiencies which unquestionably do exist in our statute law and procedure, and which are within the reach of present remedy.” The Judge, however, thinks there are some things besides the deficiencies of the law that are the causes of grumbling, and these are the “ignorance, prejudice, and negligence and unreasonableness of individuals and classes.” Alas ! it is the old story, human nature is not perfect, anti how can there be perfect law's, far less perfect administration of justice, amidst so many imperfections 1 Emerson said all law was only an endeavor after the right; and, so long as there are laws, lawyers, litigants, and Courts, there will be mischiefs and grumblings all Judge Johnston’s draft bills and Mr Bathgate’s ad valorem costs notwithstanding. Still, reform is needed, and we are sure that all who desire to see justice done will welcome the effort of such a skilled Judge as Judge J ohnston in the direction of legal reform.