The Telephone. WITH WHICH INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 305, 9 December 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. WITH WHICH INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9.

PREVious-to the year 1882, when the form of procedure was greatly simplified, litigants in the Supreme Court were often put to most vexatious delays and expense. The preparations of the pleadings in an action in the Supreme Court scarceljfrreqpveS'ia .legal, trailing although it is perhaps inadvisable to do without the assistance of a solicitor altogether.’- Though such great reforms have been accomplished there are persons who think that still further reforms in procedure might be effected by doing away almost entirely ,with..writteg. pjeaejings, and assimilating the proc'edtifA inthe Supreme Court to that in the Resident. Magistrate's Court, or to .soipe,thing very like it. The Act has also considerably diminished the cost of litigation. It makes it the interest,-of the lawyer, as well as-df his client,, to have the case conducted with a's'iittle' delay and expense as possible. He is now paid in proportion to the amount at stake,, and not per folio for the ■ 'amount of copying which he can find a decent excuse to make his-clerks do. in connection with the case. The more speedily the case can be conducted, to judgment.and the fewer papers have to be accumulated in. connection with it, the better does litigation now pay..the lawyers employed. This was certainly not the case under the old'system: But, though it" is a very good thing to have. a simple and inexpensive pro-, cedure. it is scarcely less important to be able to obtain the judgment of the Court with the utmost speed after the commencement of proceedings. There is . still, however, frequently much greater delay in obtaining judgment in Supreme Court litigation 'than there is any . need for. The delay complained of as still existing is sometimes due to the' action of the counsel engaged in a case. There are too many adjournments to suit the convenience of counsel. Counsel on one side has been lazy or busy, and has not prepared his case, so he asks his learned friend on the other side to consent to an adjournment. The consent is generally given, unless the client absolutely forbids it, for counsel-knows, he: may wish a favor of this sort himself some day, and he wishes to establish a claim to it. The adjourned case, therefore, swells the list for the next sitting, and the litigants remain in suspense for a further period. Clients are frequently not consulted by their lawyers as to these adjournments. If they are, good nature, or the obligations under which they may be to their solicitors, often induces them to give an unwilling consent. But adjournments should never be allowed, unless for good cause shown in connection with the case itself. The' convenience of counsel should not be fa sufficient excuse. The action should be dismissed if the plaintiff is not ready to go on when the appointed day comes, or heard, if it be the defendant who is unready, unless some valid reason for adjournment be shown, suc-H as-absence or illness of witnesses, "Or unless negotiations for a compromise be in progress. This would dispose of one fruitful source of delay. But another cause of

riel ay if) the compiSfioft of litigation is the mode in which the judges arrange their sittings for the dispatch of business. Our Judges are a bod}' of men of whom the colony has every reason to he proud, but they cannot complain of belngoverworked. It is scarcelyan exaggeration to sav that no one of them does a tenth part of the work which an English Judge has to do. It is true that they only get about a quarter of the salary which the English Judges get. Rut then professional incomes are ven’ small here, as compared with those obtained bv the class of men who accept Judgeships at Home,