THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1881. VERY DEAR LAW.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2235, 1 June 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1881. VERY DEAR LAW.

The late President of the Chrisfcchurch Chamber of Commerce, Mr Q. G. Stead, spoke very plainly at the last meeting of that body, on the subject of lawyers' charges, their prerogatives, and what a heavy stone was aronnd people's necks through the present extravagant cost of enr Judicial system. Mr. Stead, whatever adverse opinions may be offered, must be admitted to be a bold man. He has absolutely " belled the cat," by giving vent to expressions which have long been upon the tongues of many, if never before so fearlessly brought out. That the legal profession should be in arms at the approach of an organised antagonism such as was manifested at the last meeting of the Chamber cannot be wondered at. Any attack upon vested interests or so-called rights born out of the womb of musty tradition must naturally meet with fierce opposition. Is it not one of the many legal axioms that possession is nine points of the law? No one, therefore, could have been surprised at the lengthy and carefully digested replication to Mr. Stead's remarks and the motion passed by the Chamber, which appeared under a nom de plume in the columns of one of our morning contemporaries, and to certain erratic comments which were editorially made at the same time in the same paper. The Chamber of Commerce adopted a resolution to the effect—" That the Government be strongly urged to introduce a Bill assimilating the procedure of the Supreme Court to that of the District Court ia cases up to £2OOO or otherwise to increase the jurisdiction ef the District Court to the above amount." And in what was urged by those who spoke in favor of the motion, we fail to see that any practical person, whose mind does not happen to be saturated by the antique isms and ologies of the learned profession, could really find fault. Beyond a doubt, and as will be but too readily admitted by the big body of law-sufferers, the heaviest tax which the community has had to pay during all these years is that of vexatiously useless and expensive law charges. The other side, in this newly started controversy, finds it convenient to throw herrings across the scent. They say: so and so, who belongs to another branch of the commercial world, is making quite a large fortune, and that also out of the general public. Look at his charges and at the enormous profits he derives ? But they ignore the fact that, unlike any other trading section of the community, lawyers' fees and mysterious "takings " are regulated by legislation. Parliament was always their friend, and with the enormous influence which limbs of the law have invariably obtained there, the profession has all along been protected and privileged. Not so with common traders or merchants. Competition in regard to prices has all to do in adjusting the scales of their commercial dealings with their clients. In the matter of the exhorbitant and monstrous charges made in the Law Courts, the Superior Court especially—and it is to this question that the Chamber of Commerce attached itself more particularly—what do we fiHd? Why, in a majority of instances, suitors who, when going to law succeed in vindicating their claims with flying colors, discover that the game is not worth the candle,- that in fact it cost them twenty-five shillings to recover one sovereign. This assertion of ours is scarcely novel, and will not, we feel sure, astonish any one. There are but few whose toes have not been pinched by the legal shoe. One case in point: Not long ago, a suitor in the Resident Magistrate's Court reduced the amount of his claim from £IBO to £IOO, so as to bring his plaint within the Pvesident Magistrate's jurisdiction; and, in answer to the Magistrate, the solicitor in the case remarked that he had advised his client to incur the loss, enormous as it was, " because it was cheaper than to go to the higher Court." There are a variety of cases which, simple as their technical procedure may be, cannot be decided within a margin of say £l5O, thereby precluding the poor from obtaining that which the rich can secure. Then we have those abominations called costs between solicitor and client, of which the Courts cannot take any cognizance except when in the shape of an application made to the Taxing-master, himself a lawyer generally or nearly so, or at all events one whose position renders him anxious to keep well with the profession. And as to this singular Court of Taxation of which much mention was made by some of the speakers at the meeting of the Chamber, how ia it, it will bo asked, that solicitors whoso charges are set out and scheduled to the very farthing by specially devised legislation, should be allowed to escape punishment when the Taxing Court convicts them of overcharge ? Over-charge in their cases must mean wilfnl and deliberate attempt at extracting monies to which they fully know they are not entitled. Mr. Stead quoted a notorious instance when out of a lawyer's charge of £SOO, the sum allowed was taxed down to £366; and all the time the fortunate lawyer had already bled his client to the

tone of more than £IOO, and when the case was over ho finally made this good-natured-man. pay .uptbe-amount'struck off by the taxing-master ! Such a state of things in these, high-pressured modern days of ours .seems incredible. And these instances of extortionate demands are not the exception, button-'the contrary, very much'the-Tule. Relieve that we are correct in saying tthat scarcely a bill of costs leaves the taxation of the Registrar without getting a considerable portion of its " tentative " items ruthlessly shorn off. And we believe also, that if the Registrar could find it convenient to discharge his taxing dnties towards the public without misgivings or compunction towards his professional brethren, a great deal more taxing-off would be seen, and that, furtherfore, the Judges would become more practically interested in the merits of these interminable contests between ignorant laymen and " absorbing" professionals. Some years ago one of our leading politicians, bent upon endeavoring to have the scandalous ponderosity of our legal system reduced to commonsense proportions, introduced a Bill which purported to deal practically with the evil. The subject was indeed an unusually grave one to tackle, when it is remembered that then, as is the case now, there was a powerful legal clique representing the profession on the Parliamentary benches. This well meant effort, of course, came to nothing. Public opinion, we much fear, requires to be gradually educated to the full sense of the powerful pressure it can bring to bear in serious questions of the kind. And when taking the initiative stops they did last week in this important matter of attempting to have remodelled our judicial modes of procedure, the Chamber of Commerce acted well towards the community; their insertion of the small end of the wedge should be followed out by direct efforts on the part of the elects of the people in the House. A contemporary, speaking on the subject, goes even farther. Dilating upon the enormous handicapping to which taxpayers are submitted through the unheard-of charges which they have to pay for the simplest services rendered by lawyers, our friend says that the only remedy apparently remaining towards having this state of things radically cured is thinning the ranks of our representatives of the many members of the learned profession, whose influence in legislation in matters affecting legal procedure is paramount there, andjthat too much to the detriment of the greatest number. We are not quite sure but that our contemporary is somewhat right.