DISTRICT COURTS, AND THEIR FUNCTIONS.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 84, 18 October 1879, Page 2

DISTRICT COURTS, AND THEIR FUNCTIONS.

Although a Bill lias been tabled by the »e\v member for Nelson City, Mr. Pitt, to a min d the District Courts Act of 1858, it.is of such a nature' as scarcely to warrant the name, the whole .Bill being contained m two clauses, one of wliicL, of course, is confined to the title. The subject matt r of the body is of but little importance to the general public, being nothing more nor less than to legalise the adidavit of the officer or agent of any incorporated company wh' might be agent. By the Act of 1858,* which established such tribunals, the jurisdiction of the presiding Judge was limited to the extent of £100 but eight years later it was found advisable, by the Jurisdiction Extension Act of 18<j6, to give additional power, and to increase the limit to £200. Such a boon were those cheap, courts of law, and so well have they answered the ends for which they were instituted, that we are not surprised to see a movement on foot, not only to introduce them into new districts, but also that it is advocated that the Jurisdiction Kxt^nsion Act shall be further improved, and power given for adjudication up to £500. In support of tiie latter step we find his Honor Judge VVeston afc a sitting of the Hokitika District Court, remarking on the anomaly presented m restricting the jurisdiction of District Courts to £200 m recovering debts, while they had unlimited jurisdiction iv bankruptcy and mining cases, where thousands are involved, and m their criminal jurisdiction could inflict sentences of seven years. The. present circumscribed jurisdiction frequently occasioned actual injustice, as suitors repeatedly pljt up with serious loss rather than risk litigati-min, the Supreme Court, w.here costs were so heavy. Perhaps one of the greatest pleas which could be put forward m support of the establishment of District Courts,- is the m -xpensive nature of their proceedings ; asi strange as it may appear, many of i the fees are less than those charged at the Resident Magistrate's Court. In addition to that very cogent argument, the litigants have it m their power to determiue by consent whether the decision of the Judge shall be final, thus debarring either from making an appeal to a higher Court ; and either plaintiff ordefendant can, by giving seven days' notiye, and complying with certain conditions claim trial before a jury of four. These are some o,f the ailvantfigi*s to be derived from having District Courts m which to institute civil proceedings, bul the Act requires further amendment with regard to crimiual cases. We are pleased to see that the Chief Justice holdsvthat opinion, and at the late silting of the Supreme Court ai poison spoke m strong terms of'flhe advisability of alter-, ing the law, so as to allow the District Court to adjudicate upon certain cases. -I«-'dt>alihg T v\'ith tlie matter Ins Honor said :— : • ' Tlie defect was tliat* m. giving jurisdiction to fclte District Courts the Legislature had not. followed implicitly the English precedent!: where the Legislature had excepte f i oerCain cases which were to.go to the superior Courts, leaving" all otiiers for the Courts ol Quarter Sessions, the result, tjeing tl al only sueli eases as perj ury, f orgery, and otiiers involving intricate pomls of law weut to. tiie higher Court,. "Hsre, however, t.ie Legislature had not been satisfied with* .making tlie-<e exceptions, but had shut out from tne District Court nil cases m which the punishment to be awarded might exceed deven years. In regard to the allocation of punishment accord tug to the offence a large margin was left to tue Judge, there being many of which line term of i m prisoniqent wao not to be less tiian three ye&va,. but Uijfjht extend to fourteen, the object , being to give the Uourt power to fix thp punishment m accordance with tlie ciroumstauces of the case rather than the gravity pf the off enue. The reuU or tnis was tuat many cises were, ejtduued from the "jurisdiction of the Jjidihvl ; Ouurt ,on account ol tii is wide limit. Tiie exception was one that should bo done away with, and it might be done by a very simple alteration of tiie law. J urors were sumuiuned regularly fqr the District Court session,*, aud theeame amount of lncouvemence and loss of time could dispose ox eases for for which the whole lnaouiuery of tlie Supreme Court was uqw required. With regard to bue necessity'of (jrraud Juries, his wm that t ley should be oouimued," but with the modification t hat they suoutd only he sumuioiied vvjieu there were cases iv which the Crowu Prosecutor refuses or reclines to present a Bill, m su,ch cases a private proseoutor migtit have tlie rigiit to applj to the Judge of tue dupreuie Ooqrt lo have a jury empanelled, beeuiue tae Government of the tiay uiigat m some instances to prosecute for many reasons wliicli they might suppose. j%s ha? been stated by Judge PEENmsßgast, iv the extract quoted, the law does not permit or the interior Court giving inoie than seven years, and as puiiited but, it wants alteration to that end; Out according to the Aot passed iv W7O for extending the crimiual jurisdiction of District Courts, it is competent for such tribunals to have cognisance of a±i lelouies and iudictabie misdemeanors whicti aye puuisuauie by a sentence vvituiu ihacu-nu, for by the otn Clause ll is enacted timt "every such felony and mud.enieuuor nny bo dealc with, inquired 01, tried, detormined, and punished m any district constnuted under ' Tiie Distdct (Joints Act, 160:6,' where the oftc-udcr suall be anested or but m cusroiiy, m the sauie manner ill ail respects as v the oHVuce had actually been co.uuiiUed m that disenct," l'uc s^iue judge upon aqoriie.r recent occasion aui.nadvortud m strung language upon the gross injustice perpetrated upon tiie pubiii; by committing magi stratus e.\eirisiii,> an erraiic jutlgiiiout us to wnat triounui lie should commit i lie prisoner to. il is needless to say that tue reunirks of the learned Judge will bo hciiruiy endorsed by the public, but particularly by those m this di.sin'ct \vho wilL have to attend the Supreme Court Sittings at Wanganui, on i lie 271h. There are.no fewer than seven eases from i'aluiorston alone*, not oue of wiiu-h. would be beyond tlie jurisdiction of J udge HAttuCA*TLU, nevertheless a \> Hole host oi wii nesses have been dragged into Wanganui at great

the proper way would be to leave the committing magistrate no option m the matter, but where the neaest Court ba-i jurisdiction make it imperative to have the case heard there.