The Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, AUGUST 13 1878. THE LOCAL JUDICATURE BILL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 194, 13 August 1878, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, AUGUST 13 1878. THE LOCAL JUDICATURE BILL.

We proceed to offer a few comments ou the Bill of the leading provisions of which we yesterday gave an abstract. One of the first things to strike the reader is the improved position this measure proposes to give the judicial officers. The District Magistrates may after ten years service submit themselves for examination as barristers by a Judge of the Supreme Court, and so qualify themselves for promotion. Hitherto no such chance has been afforded, although anyone fortunate enough to bold the less important position of Registrar or Deputy-Registrar of the Supreme Court has been allowed, on passing the usual examinations, to become a barrister after three years service. We do not quite understand why any longer term of service should be demanded from a District Magistrate, or why his passing the examinations as a barrister should not entitle him to be placed upon the roll as such, and not merely confer the qualification for being appointed a District Judge. The District Judges will have, by tbe greatly increased importance of the duties this Bill proposes to give them, a much higher status. They will become in all but name almost Supreme Court Judges, only with the extent of their jurisdiction somewhat limited. Their position will be certainly superior to that of County Court Judges in England, inasmuch as the latter have no power to try criminal cases. The provisions allowing Justices to sit with the District Magistrate we cannot help thinking a mistake. Practically it will only require the presence of three Justices to sit with the District Magistrate to outvote him aud thus to take the trial of causes up to £50 into their own hands. Now as Justices can only hear cases not exceeding £20 it seems absurd that by the presence of three Justices along with the D.M., tbeir jurisdiction should be really, although not in theory, increased to £50. Either the District Magistrate alone should have jurisdiction to try all cases between £20 and £50, or the Justices should have the same jurisdiction, or better still, have none at all except in matters they are' authorised to deal with by virtue of " The Justices of the Peace Act." The refusal to allow counsel to appear in cases under £5 except by leave of the Court will not be found fault with by many. It is certainly most unreasonable that in undefended cases and in simple disputes about a few shillings, involving no legal difficulties, there should be the almost invariable addition to the judgment of the Court of " one guinea professional costs." The provisions for "attachment of debts" are new to our Courts, but they seem to be perfectly fair and likely to aid a creditor ia recovering from a judgment debtor what is due to him. The powers given to the Court as to disputed boundaries are very necessary, but we are inclined to think they should only be exercised by a Court having the " full jurisdiction." The clauses relating to appeals are satisfactory, save that they foreshadow wbat we thiuk ;a very great mistake, tbat the offices of Judge and Magistrate ivill sometimes, perhaps frequently, beheld by

the same person. It is also a mistake to direct the Judge during the hearing 61a cause to ascertain the cost 3i as his mind must neces^rily be pthfe^ise fultf o^itpied* ahd JVunt to bepMdby .eithei- party ,forS to be ascertained by, tlie .Clerk. dftK^Cotirfc, tbo duties of the Judge be ds iUflnfeT-y directing * h o sHouil j$ fflE jStalitt aI W ,? 'S.° f Ich1 eh 1 00sin S the Jury alphabetical^ s abolished, but the Bill, unfortunately, omits to provide any other way, leaving it to b<? dealt with entirely by the rules. Why the number of the juj-ors should be increased ■h'bW four' to tivfe we _fl not Low. |. & &_.. jonty. might, decide .there,. would be some .^.^...WPi-r'^ratipfl, but, thev are still tie J inaniffioii_; s _.epUh_t &l six hours' deliberation the verdict of four may be taken. But for some sound reason whiehwe canuot even conjecture, it would be move likely tp lead,to...unanimity if the number was icept as at preseht. The extended powers proposed to be given to the District Judges iv equitable and criminal matters will largely increase the usefulness of the Court. In the former, many cases will oe dealt with speedily and cheaply which at present can only be settled by the more expensive and tedious processes of the Supreme -Court; by rthicb, hithefto, iinatoid; ply, many small estates, have been edtfcfl tip in coats: _ In the latter ii lias been { : eg_rded sis quite ridiculous tbat a person who committed a simple larceny of £50 might be tried* by the District Court, while a man who stoic a shilling ma dwelling or from the person must be sent to the Supreme Court. The proposed amendments get rid of all such absurdities. There seems to be no very clear reason why the jurisdiction of the Court should be differently regulated in civil and equity proceedings. It would be better to allow the Court, to deal all round with matters in which the claim or value did not exceed £500. Why should there be this extensive jurisdiction in equity, whilst in simple contract cases the limit is and in actions for "breach of promise.-" &c.'. £100? ' Thei-e can lm no doubt that the gehetal tendency or this Rill will be to make tbfe Supreme Court less ahd less a Court of first instance, and more what it should bean appellate tribunal.- Of the Bill as a whole we must express approval, aud not the least praiseworthy feature about it is the intelligible English in which it is drawn up. If Mr Stout, the AttorneyGeneral, has been his own draughtsman, it would pay the colony to tempt him, if possible, by liberal offers, to accept the permanent post of Parliamentary Draughtsman to the Government. The clauses are all short and easily understood, and it is devoutly to be hoped if this Bill becomes law tbat tbe clearness of the Act will not be obscured by unsuitable rules. Thero are several printers errors of both omission and commission throughout the Bill, which are no doubt annoying enough to the draughtsman, but will, of course, be corrected.