The Globe. SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 881, 21 April 1877, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 1877.

Some days ago we commented strongly upon the manner in which the business of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Christchurch was conducted, with reference to the disposal of the press of work which is daily allowed to accumulate there, to the cost and discomfot of the profession and of the public generally. We find that, since our , remarks were penned, the Minister of Justice has taken the matter into consideration, and has devised means to remedy the evil complained of. We fear however that Mr Bowen has not gone far enough, but has only dealt with it in a temporising manner. The Resident Magistrate of the Kaiapoi, Rangiora, and Oxford districts, Mr Whitcfoord, has been instructed to take up some of the business of the Christchurch district, and to sit once a week —every Friday—in the Christchurch Court in the place of Mr. Mellish. He will also relieve that gentleman of that portion of the circuit under his jurisdiction which embraces the Malvern district. Mr. Mellish will still have to perambulate the Ashburton district, and attend to the thousand and one Courts of Assessment, under the Rating Act, which have of late taken up so uselessly so much of his magisterial time. Of , arse the Kaiapoi magistrate will now ,

have to be gazetted especially tor the Christchurch and Malvern districts; and, we suppose, some arragements will have to be made between the two administrators of the law, to enable them to act in such a way —while “ in and out” of this or that bench —as may prevent any clashing of jurisdiction. A\ r c do not think this newlydevised scheme at all satisfactory, and, without doubt, the Christchurch public lias, indeed, very good cause for complaint, at being treated in so cavalier a manner. The local bar, we are aware, has for a long time past been clamouring for some kind of system in the arrangements provided by the lower Court for the despatch of business, such as would prevent their time, and that of their clients, from being frittered away, in the absurd way in which it is but too often wasted just now. And, to compel the Resident Magistrate of an adjoining district to sit once a week in Mr. Mellish’s place, while the latter has still to absent himself on circuit work, as well as undertake duties foreign to his office, seems to us very much like an attempt at playing fast and loose with the interests of the community at large, and the profession particularly. Yesterday, we understand, there were no loss than 250 civil cases on the Court books, set down for hearing at certain specified dates. Those dates, of course, mean little or nothing. If A is summoned by B, and the clerk sets out the date of hearing as required, all parties to the case, whether principals, their witnesses, or their solicitors, must be present on the day, and at the very hour fixed in the summons, although they know full well that the odds are considerably in favour of their being compelled to dance attendance on the judicial goddess-—not from hour to hour—but certainly from day to day —until such a time, in fact, as chance may place the crier in a position to clamour forth for “ A against B.” As we said before, what is required here is a division of the civil and criminal jurisdiction, which can be best effected, as has been done for years past in Auckland and Dunedin, by the establishment of a criminal court — call it a Mayor’s Court or by any other name while the civil jurisdiction should be entirely placed in the hands of a separate Bench. The police magistrate of a town of the size and importance of Christchurch should not be seen dying about the country districts on other official duties; and, to make good his absence while engaged in those peripatetic trips by the introduction, spasmodically, of the bucolic brother, who himself should keep to his own country work, can only result in making present confusion worse confounded. As things now arc, the inexplicable mixing up of dates of hearings of civil cases, and their adjournments from time to time, to the great perplexity of lawyers and officials concerned, are such as to deter many people from seeking legal remedies which they may need, unless it be either in matter involving considerable loss or issues of unusual importance. And while on this subject we would draw attention to the new Court rules, which have lately been arbitrarily established by Mr Mellish, with reference to the fee which shall be paid to solicitors engaged as counsel before him. Unless the amount to be sued for, says Mr. Mellish, be above £5, he will not allow any fee whatever. A more absurd and ill-conceived rule could scarcely be devised. It is obvious that in the majority of disputes arising between litigants, the amount of the claim made is but of little moment. A point of law, the settling of which involves issues of great magnitude, is oftentimes raised upon a demand of a few shillings, and it is then especially that counsel’s arguments are iudispenable. We remember one instance particularly which occurred in Wellington, not longago, where a member of the Lower House, Mr. Andrews, placed in motion the most expensive machinery that the law provides, and that too on more than one occasion, and it was all about the legality or otherwise of one shilling toll being levied by a gatekeeper. In Christchurch, under the magisterial presidency of Mr. Mellish, the gentleman in question would have had to engage counsel at his own expense, without the slightest hope of being recouped in case of successful contention.