South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2827, 17 April 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1882.

It is to be regretted that there should exist among a good many persons a fondness for litigation, and that, in consequence, a number of disputes should be dragged into open court which might have been settled by moderation on both sides. Courts of law were established to decide between disputants who could see no prospect of coming to an agreement, to compel the really unwilling to pay their just debts, and to decide upon the nature and extent of the rights of claimants. And they were invested with authority in order that their decisions might the better tend to the promotion of peace and agreement in the community. They were intended to provide for a state of things not within the range of ordinary circumstances, to bring the united wisdom of the nation, as concentrated in its statutes, to bear upon individual interests. Such, clearly, was the intention of establishing law courts. Putting out of the question technicalities—and looking not at cases of contumacy and dishonesty, but at ordinary disputes that arise between persons perfectly honourable and straightforward, disputes in which neither has any desire to over-reach the other, we cannot but regret that these are not more frequently kept out of Court. For the examination of them involves loss of time and money which could have been far better employed,and is inconsistent with the selfreliant spirit and intelligence which should belong to every man who has business to do. A candid businesslike review of the circumstances, together ; or, better still, a reference to some third person not interested, in whom the disputants have equal confidence, would, in nine cases out of ten, result in a fair and' satisfactory settlement of the dispute. It appears most natural to refer a dispute to some responsible person who is known to be fitted to form an opinion. He may know very little law, or none at all. But he knows equity and fair dealing, and both the disputants, we will suppose, desire these. The- friend, looking at the matter with an experienced eye, weighs all claims and statements, and instinctively rejects those not consistent with equity. This, it seems to us, would be a very much more reasonable and effective procedure than setting the law in motion and calling all its appliances into operation to settle disputes which sensible men should not allow to be made public at all. It is very certain that among the most successful business-men there is a large and growing number who have never employed legal process in the conduct of their business, who have never made an appeal to, or sought the aid of, a law Court. And it is the experience of many others that when the expense, the risk, the worry, the loss of time, inseparable from an appearance in Court, are put together, the total forms a very substantial barrier for the future. Besides, in five cases out of ten the object sought is only half attained. It is, then, no disparagement of lawyers, or tribunals, to say that the less frequently people appeal to them the better. Carefulness and circumspection at first, with fair dealing afterwards ; and, throughout the whole transaction, a clear idea on both sides of the actual state of the case, will generally lead to a satisfactory issue, and render it unnecessary to drag the matter into publicity.