LAW REFORM

Evening Star, Issue 3753, 4 March 1875, Page 3

LAW REFORM

Is urged by a practitioner in Canterbury, whose plan is to abolish the present Court of Ap, eal, and to substitute the following system as* more suited to the circumstances of the Colony 4fter a judge has given a decision, which is objected to as bad law, that the record, summons, or matter, as it came before the judge whose, opinion is challenged, should be printed, without the judgment objected to ; that the counsel for each side should carefully write out his argument—in support of his contention, citing cases in support, whether brought forward at the first hearing or not. That these arguments should be printed in like manner and handed to the Registrar, who should forward all the printed papers to Judges, at their own districts, each party naming oue Judge. (The detail of this can he arranged so as to ensure au odd number of Judges, and consequently a majority). That these two Judges should give thoir judgments in nrifceach stating that his judgment is given without consulting his fellow Judges or knowing what judgment had already been given. The Judge hearing the case in the first instance, knowing that his judgment if hastily given could be exposed to so prompt a reconsideration and ultimately to the ciiticism of the whole profession, as presently explained, would be put upon bis mettle, and would not allow himself to be influenced by anything but the dry law of the case in his anxiety to uphold his legal reputation, and that an appeal would be seldom necessary. After the judgments are returned, the opinion of the majority, including that firsft given at the viva voce healing, to be the judgment. Then, without revision rf any kind, these cases should be printed in bine books, and forwarded monthly gratis to every practitioner who has taken out his yearly license. It may objected that this it only a modification of the present system of stating a case, but that requires agreement or settlement by the Judges, and is consequently useless for the object s >ught to be attained by the above scheme, namely, painstaking judgments, an inexpensive and satisfactory appeal, and uniformity of practice. The ultimate appeal-to the Privy Council Would of course remain, but I venture to assert that if such a system as that above indicated were in force in New Zealand, very few appeals Home would he found necessary.