CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2231, 27 May 1881, Page 3

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

A special general meeting of the above was held yesterday afternoon at 3 o’clock. Present: Messrs A. O, Wilson (President), G. G. Stead, P. Cunningham, W. D. Meares, G. Gould, O. W. Turner, W. Ohrystall, J, Aitken, D. Caro, 8. Manning, T. S. Weston, Fletcher, J. 8. Jameson, T. Pavitt, B. B. Wright, W. E. MoDongall, K. Walton, Hon. J. T. Peacock, B. O. J. Stevens, H. B. Alport, and John Inglis. The Chairman having stated the business of the meeting, Mr G. G. Stead then moved the following resolution;—“That the Government be strongly urged, at the next session, to introduce a Bill assimilating the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to that of the District Court up to an amount of £2000.” Mr Stead, in support of the motion, said—The necessity of some measure of reform, for the purpose of economising the cost of legal proceedings in the Supreme Court, will, I think, commend itself to most laymen. The costs under the present system are so ruinous, that persons who really require redress tremble at the thought of having to resort to the Courts of Justice in the colony. If effect were given to the alterations embodied in the resolution the costs could he fixed at so much per cent, on both sides, and it should be made a punishable offence on the part of any solicitor who charged more than the amount allowed, by giving the Court power to fine or suspend the delinquent. There is absolutely no reason whatever why ordinary cases should not he tried on summons in the Supremo Court, as well as they now are in the District Court, excepting that the Judges and lawyers object to it. The change could bo effected by the simplest Act of the Legislature; in fact it would be merely a transcription of parts of the present District Courts Act. The advantages to the community would not cease in the saving of law costs only. If the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was rendered as simple as that of the District Court, there would clearly bo no occasion for all the costly offices of the various registrars’ departments now existing in every district in New Zealand. These officers are paid good salaries for really doing very little, as in every instance there is a deputy-registrar, oud the registrar is permitted to spend his time in studying for the Bar, which of course must take up a large portion of the time which should be devoted to his public duties. The costs of legal proceedings are a heavy burden on the community, and it is surprising that mercantile and other business men have not long since made a strong effort to get the evil remedied. In a case tried recently in the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the costs amounted to nearly £SOO, and on taxation the public taxing officer appointed by the Government to protect the public, thought it his duty to allow about £366. This, it may be observed, was what the defendant, who lost, had to pay to the opposing lawyer. But what followed is still more astonishing. The successful party had already paid his own lawyer over £IOO to go on with the case, and when the case was over, the lawyer made him pay, in addition, the amount which the registrar had struck off the bill of costs, viz., about £l3O. So that on one side alone the lawyers received over £6OO, and the costs on the other side amounted to over £2OO. The whole of these costs wore incurred in trying a simple straightforward cose, which could have been tried in the District Court at a cost of £2O to £3O. In Mother set of oases, where a very simple question arose, it is known that after one case was settled, the remainder of the cases were withdrawn by the plaintiffs, and since then the costs on one side have been forwarded for taxation, amounting to between six and seven thousand pounds. There is said to be a tribunal called the Law Society of New Zealand, before which all matters affecting the profession can be brought, and if necessary can be followed up by proceedings before the Court. Are the community to believe that such matters as these I have referred to are sanctioned and approved by the profession generally ? If not, why have they not taken steps to put a stop to a system which permits such heavy charges being levied in simple law oases ? Have the judges no power to enquire into such transactions P Can they not see for themselves in their own Courts these bills of costs on the taxing masters’ shelves?. There is but one conclusion to come to, and it is that they will not look into these matters, but that the whole body of

lawyers, from the judges downwards, are so bent on keeping things as they are, that tbey will not make an effort to simplify the proceedings in the Supreme Court. Again, under the present state of the law, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to give security for the coats, and, consequently, if an adventurer chooses to bring an action for damages against a responsible person, on the off chance of obtaining a verdict, the defendant is comDolled to follow the case through all the expensive and complicated intricacies of the law as at present administered. If, iu the event of his successfully defending the action, his solicitor is unable to extract the costs from the mendicant plaintiff, the whole burden of defending an unjust notion falls upon the innocent defendant. This position may fall to anyone’s lot, and it must be borne in mind the unfortunate defendant has absolutely no check or control over the costs that may be incurred, as he must answer every plea that the plaintiff chooses to adduce. It is time, therefore, that the laity take some steps in self-defence, and I, therefore, propose the resolution I have brought forward, in the hope that, if carried, other Chambers in New Zealand will follow onr example, and urge upon the Government the necessity of taking steps to simplify the proceedings of the Supremo Court without delay. Mr W. Ohryetall seconded the resolution, contending that the proposed legislation was urgently needed by the mercantile community. Mr T. 8. Weston thoroughly sympathised with the resolution. The thanks of the community were duo to the Chamber for the motion; but he thought it would be found practically unworkable, as two systems of procedure were not desirable. He thought both equity and common law should be administered cheaply and expeditiously, and that the Supreme Court should be simplified to take in all oases, large and small. The present charges being simply prohibitive, so that the poor man had no chance, and the result was that people would submit to grievous injury rather than incur the heavy costs which had to be borne before the evil could be remedied. He hoped that the Bench would agree with the proposed reform, as, without its co-operation, the proposed action would not be a success. He would move the following, as an amendment: “ That the Government be requested to introduce a Bill to simplify the procedure of the Supreme Court in its civil and equitable jaris'diotion, and assimilate it to the District Court.” Mr Walton thought that the jurisdiction of the District Court should bo extended to either £ISOO or £2OOO, and he also thought immediate judgment should result, instead of waiting three months, as at present. The Chairman stated that in trying to obtain £I2OO his firm had spent £6OO, and then they got nothing, Mr O. W. Turner said he was trustee for an estate, and could get neither Judge nor lawyers to do anything in the matter. Mr Stead was willing, with the consent of his seconder, to withdraw his resolution in favor of the amendment, although he would have liked Mr Weston to have fixed a limit. Mr Weston wanted to know why £50,000 should uot bo recoverable by simple process, ns easily as a smaller sum, further remarking that no Judge would be able to act under two jurisdictions. The Hon. J, T. Peacock thought the word “ procedure ” should be inserted by Mr Stead in his motion instead of “jurisdiction.” Hr Stead would not object to the substitution. Mr O.W. Turner said that the chief education of the host of young men being trained as lawyers was to know how to draw a bill of costs, and it would, therefore, be hopeless to look for reform in the Supreme Court. After a long discussion, tho Chairman put Mr Weston’s amendment, which was negatived on the voices. Hon. J. T. Peacock then moved as an amendment—“ That the Government be strongly urged to introduce a Bill next session to extend the jurisdiction of the District Court to an amount of £2000.” Mr Alport briefly seconded. This amendment was then put, and an equal show of hands resulting, the Chairman negatived it by his casting vote. After sundry alterations, Mr Stead’s motion finally road as follows : —“ That tho Government he strongly urged to introduce a Bill next session assimilating the procedure of the Supreme Court to that of the present District Court in cases up to an amount of £2OOO, or otherwise to increase the jurisdiction of the District Court up to the above amount of £2000.” On being put, the motion was declared carried on the voices. The report of the sub-committee re the erection of a new building for the Chamber was then read, and after considerable discussion it was determined, on the motion of Mr Inglis, seconded by Mr T. Pavitt —“ That the question be adjourned till that day four weeks at 3 p.m., and that the report of the committee be meanwhile circulated amongst the members.” Mr Caro reported the particulars of an interview with the railway manager, which he hoped would result in the railway chargee on bottled beer being reduced about one third. Tho meeting then adjourned.