The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 579, 22 May 1858, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

The immense mass of carefully considered bills which has been laid on the table of the House of Representatives, or of which notice has been given, reflects great credit upon the zeal and industry of the present Government. In our present ignorance of the details of most of them, we can only hope that the failing of many Colonial Governments, a zeal for overlegislation, has not run away with the New Zealand Executive. But while we deprecate any unfair or captious carping at the only Government which at present seems possible, and one which, with all its faults, has shown a vigour unprecedented in New Zealand, it is our duty to take an opportunity, when one is allowed us, of commenting upon any measures which may appear objectionable in principle. While the seat of Government remains at Auckland it is very seldom that any comments or remonstrances from the South can have any influence in the Houses of Assembly. Two out of five of the members of the House of Representatives for this province will not reach Auckland until many important measures have been passed; and when at last the South is fully represented, our members will probably ■find the House so far committed to certain views and opinions that they will lose the amount of influence which they might have commanded, had all of them been present from the commencement of the session. One of. the Bills which have "been introduced by the Government, a copy of which we have seen, " the District Courts Bill, " has probably by this time been disposed of. We hope that if passed it has been considerably modified in its progress through the Houses. At any rate it is not too late for objectors to come forward and express their opinions upon it, as by the 3rd clause it is necessary that the Governorshould proclaim thedistricts to be affected by it before it can come into operation. It is to be presumed that his Excellency's Government %ill not impose the measure upon any district which does not want or wish for it: let us consider in time whether it is one fitted to our circumstances and necessities. flu -a rapidly increasing community like ours ;the <lue administration of justice is the most important of all necessities. We are glad to observe that his Excellency in his opening address alludes tothe importance of early attention to this subject. But the value of the justice administered is not to be measured by quantity but by quality. In good and efficient courts of justice the public does not grudge liberal payment to secure the services of fully competent men. We have got beyond the day of shifts and contrivances, and should have expected that old make-shifts should be swept away, rather than that new ones should ■be invented. An extension of the Supreme Court, and a greater facility of action in it, together with an amelioration of the Courts of summary juristiction will be hailed as boons; but such a measure as this District Courts Bill appears to us to be a step in the wrong direction. We have not, in the short limits to which we must confine ourselves, space to enter into a detailed criticism of the Bill before us;—we can only point out cursorily the salient points of objection which present themselves. These are unfortunately so striking that the task is not a difficult one. The 4th clause of the Bill tells us that his Excellency shall appomt " a fit and proper person to be judge of this Court." Now we must first consider what is to constitute a " fit and proper person;" because upon this in a great measure depends the estimation in which this mensure will be held by the public. When the large powers given by the Bill are taken into consideration, it will be conceded that none but a man bred to the practice of the higher branches of the law would be " a fit and proper person" to exercise them. We find, however, that all persons practising as conypyaneers or solicitors are precluded from holding the office. It is true that the District Courts Judge is allowed to practise as a barrister in the Supreme Court; but as conveyancing and solicitor's practice are notoriously the only paying practice in New Zealand, it is obvious that no lawyer worth anything in his profession would care to hold such an office with such a salary as could be voted for an inferior Court. The salaries of Judges of the Supreme Court are barely sufficient to induce competent men to give up a good practice, notwithstanding the dignity of the office. So that; to place these inferior Courts on a footing which "should ensure the proper performance of: the important duties proposed, the judge and '. officers *>f the Court should be paid at nearly' as high a rate as those of the Supreme Court. Then what end would the establishment of these inferior Court* serve ? The probability,

i indeed we may almost say the certainty, is, that these Courts must be entrusted to men unlearned in the law; laymen (if we may use the term as opposed to lawyers) will be the " fit and proper persons" to be appointed as judges; and we shall see local magistrates exercising a jurisdiction scarcely inferior to that of the Supreme Court itself. A few quotations will give some idea of the proposed powers of these Courts. Clauses 17, 29, and 122, will answer the purpose. After defining the civil jurisdiction to which they are limited, the Bill goes on (clause 17) to enact that any action whatever may be tried by consent of both parties. Any action whatever! There is a pretty prospect of crude and necessarily ignorant precedents. What dees it signify in a difficult case whether both parties consentto the jurisdiction or not? Will such consent, teach a magistrate-judge all the intricacies of the law, however intelligent he may be. It is no satisfaction to know that the parties consent The law is supposed to protect the interests of the ignorant, of the very persons who might be tempted to trust themselves to the Court without a suspicion of its having got out of its depth. We must give clause 29 in ipsissimis verbis. " Every district court shall have cognizance of all crimes and offences (except perjury), committed within the district over which its jurisdiction extends, and punishable by fine, or imprisonment, or both, or by transportation not exceeding seven years, or by penal servitude not exceeding four years." On reading this it is natural to ask, why stop here? Why withhold all other criminal jurisdiction ? If the gentleman ?who may preside in district courts is competent to be judge in cases involving seven years transportation, he should be considered competent to condemn to death. Seriously, are the colonists of New Zealand prepared for this so called improvement in the administration of justice? Are they prepared to hold the security of liberties and property on no better tenure than the possible attainments of any private gentleman who may for the nonce be considered by the existing government a " fit and proper person" ? And this at a time when we are promised an extension of the Supreme Court. We want the best law we can get, and will willingly p;iy for it. But this is not to be attained by having inferior courts of such a constitution enjoying concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court which may be sitting next doorIf, however, in civil cases the plaintiff might choose his Court, the matter, bad as it might be, would be more tolerable; but we find by clause 122, that people are to be punished for going to the .Supreme Court instead of the District Court. This clause enacts that a plaintiff recovering in the Supreme Court any sum not exceeding £100, when District Courts have jurisdiction in the case, is not to be allowed his costs. However rightful the case of the litigant may prove to be, he has shown a wicked preference for the Supreme Court, and a contempt, or at least neglect, of the 'fit and proper' Court which must be punished. So he is mulcted of his costs. If these Courts are to come into existence, it is perhaps just as well to ensure their having work to do. After these instances of the powers proposed to be granted to these District Courts, it will not startle our readers to hear that they will have power to grant and dissolve injunctions (clause 25), to grant probates of wills and letters of administration, to set aside awards, and to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, to hear and determine appeals upon summary convictions. Such trifles, involving, as they do, no slight knowledge of • equity and law, may fairly be entrusted to a Court which can award penal servitude for four years. It may be remarked apropos of this " improvement" in the administration of justice, that one of the avowed evils of the Indian civil service, and one which is now most loudly exclaimed against, is the practice of entrusting large judicial powers to men who have not received a special legal education. The Englishmen in India nearly mutinied not long ago at a prospect, which was held out, of their being subjected to this unlearned jurisdiction. It did , very well they said for the poor Indian ryots, but it did not do for Englishmen. Are we Englishmen in New Zealand ? We had further remarks to make on other enactments of this bill—such as for instance the proposed payment of Solicitors by per centage,—and the jury reduced to four by challenge, but we must defer them now. They do not affect the point which it is most necessary to urge, viz.—the danger of conferring such large powers on inferior and necessarily incompetent Courts. However careless the colony may prove as to legislation in general, it cannot afford to be careless when it affects the question of the administration of justice.