"THE R.M. ACT, 1867."

Mataura Ensign, Volume 7, Issue 392, 16 September 1884, Page 2

"THE R.M. ACT, 1867."

; -the- Eesidcnt Ma*is'^Y^^'m^f'ap'Gtdve is now assjuming /f^^c&'^i^'projr^rtiofis^fchat it is desirable '■""'' foe fJaVib'e'netit'of ail ; parties Svhose busi,Qgjj)(j,^ »^opjjpjs .tl^em. ,to resort thitherto J ytyjnsidftv, wji ether, some mipthod cannot j W'ii^pr6Te the administration or trie law': "an, 'administration which, as at pres?ii,b fcarri,ed. o ; ut, causes, much, loss and inconvenience to suitors, witnesses, and others. In 'the first place, it is ob vid&stfo ~&U tflids&'p'ersons who have to attend the Gore Court that one sitting per month is "wholly insufficient to perrjafj??#7 sa( i^^l^W^ the Courtro ypfc ft im?nbei;^ f mtzngs pi the Court $islfjsess%st: *'-?y£#tf ri>o J»abj case?

to be got through, in one day, and the result iu ;< inany instances has been that an adjournment) of then to Mataura or ,else to. the next monthly I sitting of the Gore Court has been made. The loss and annoyance caused j by! ! this : ; mode of procedure can j only be fairly" appreciated 'by those ; suitors abd witnesses who, after coming considerable distance, and waiting about the Court all day,\ find that they have to go away and come again another day. In an agricultural district like this this wasting of time is in ma.ny parts of the year a serious loss to those so suffering. Surely this district is extensive enough and of sufficient importance, and the income of the Court largo enough, to warrant two sittings per month — nay, the business and necessities of the residents demand it. Another; and perhaps a 'still greater, annoyance to suitors and others, is the question of the service of summonses.- One attends the ' Court sitting after sitting and on hearing the 'names of the cases called .one, hears the Cleric oE the Court call out the ominous words " Not 1 sowed." . Now in many of these cases all or nearly all the summonses have been issued in ample time for service to be effected. Very rarely is a,ny explanation offered for the nonI service, and when any explanation is offered it is not in our belief in any case satisfactory. The poor suitors and their witnesses have to return to their Various places of. residence after a fruitless 'journey to Gore, and much loss and inconvenience, more frequently from this cause, perhaps, than any other. Whoso fault is it ? Some persons blame the bailiff, and there is not a few who hint that he has some object in not serving. , the summonses. . We do not thinlc the blame rests entirely with the bailiff, but we contend that it arises mainly from the faulty and misconceived administration ', :of the lavr, Section 14 of "The Resident Magistrate's Act, 1867," says : '/ The bailiff shall _ . . ... serve all summonses within ten miles of the Courthouse, cr within such other distance as may, be inscribed any general rule to be made for the Court by the Besident Magistrate. . . ." Sectioii 15 of the same Act provides " For service of process .... the bailiff or his assistant shall be entitled to receive the fees' specified in Schedule E . . ." Schedule JE was, however, amended by an ! Order; in Council . dated 4th November, 1868, and that has been again amended by a recent order, which in effect provides a single fee for summons and ?errice combined, arid provides for Is extra for service for every mile Beyond imiles from the Court, but it does not state that they are necessarily payable to the bailiff of the Court. Section 29 of the before-mentioned Act further provides "The process of the Court shall be setved by the bailiff or jhijS assistants or by any person the Kesident"Magistrate", Magistrate, or Justice of the Peace issuing the same may think fit to direct," The !R,M. for this district holds that the language of section 14 is mandatory and . that although he will allow other persons than the baliff to serve summonses, yet he cannot allow them any fee or mileage. We beg respectfully to differ from the E.M. We contend that the language of section 14 is directory only, and not mandatory. This interpretation is fairly borne out by the languaeeof section 29', The object of section 14 obviously, is that spme officer of the Court shall be compell&ble to serve the process of the Court in, order thafc suitors may if < they so desire it avoid effecting service themselves.' It means, we contend, nothing more. The main object is to g-et the defendant served with the summons. It becomes a mere question of costs. Then the Court : has powei" under section 63 to order ?' all the costs of a suit "to "be paid or apportioned between the parties in such manner as the Court shall think fit " and surely the costs of service are necessarily part of the costs of a case. "We can see no objection either in the Act or on principle to the parties serving their own summonses. On the contrary it would in many cases be desirable that they should do so. Nor can we see any objection to their being allowed at any rate the mileage for so doing. They have to incur the ex- [ pense of coming to the Court to issue the summons, and attending the Court on } the hearing, for which they are not al- ! lowed anything. We venture to «ay,that |if suitors were allowed— and we think they are entitled to do so-^-fep .serve their summonses, none of these ,aggiFaya#Bg delays I and expenses connected with the w.o^ds i"N ot served " wouldloccur. Suitors in most cases know the residence and person of a defendant far better than the bajh'ff , can de, and their own interests would prompt them to effect service in due time. There would then be no such excuses as "Cannot be found," '[ Not home," etc. If our /eonfcention is incorrect and the evils complained of are not due to merely defective administration of the law, but to the Act itself the]? ajl we can say is that the Act should be at once amended in that respect (and in. some others also), and the sooner that is <ione, the better for the community at largo.