South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2879, 17 June 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1882.

In a recent article we took occasion to review the Bill put forward by Sir George Grey, intituled the Law Practitioners Act; We therein endeavored to show bow the law and the legal ■ profession, and the public at large, would probably be affected by this’sweeping measure. We intended at the same time to bring before our readers another subject arising partly out of a consideration of the Bill. Space then forbade us, and we therefore take this opportunity of directing our readers’ attention to the subject of litigation. It is a matter of surprise, after the public have had so many examples of the costliness of this and its; barrenness of good results, that there should yet remain so widespread a disposition to resort to the law in cases of dispute. Almost daily we find persons dragging into open Court cases which for their own pockets’ sake, and for the sake of public time and pub’ic morality, ought never to appear there. This fatal passion for litigation is quite foreign to the spirit of the laws, as we understand it. Law is promulgated: and established as a standard for everyone’s actions, not as a weapon to be seized upon by any and every disputant. For this practice leads to narrow and strained interpretations of statutes, quite at variance with the broad and liberal intention of the framers. While we value most highly the existence of a body of men trained to the practice and exposition of the law, we think the number of these increases in undue proportion. One would think the advance of popular intelligence would lead to the gradual diminution in the number and functions of lawyers. The reverse is the case, however ; lawyers and disputants appear to increase in number every year. There are very few persons but. would find it to their advantage to consider this matter, as one very greatly affecting themselves. For the opportunity and the temptation to go to law are always presenting themselves to pretty nearly every one. There are numberless disputes arising, which it may or may not be within the scope of the law to settle. But in ordinary cases, arbitration would do all that • was required, without an appeal to the Court; an exposure, and the possibility of defeat, or (still worse) of expensive victory. Going to law to recover debts, is a simple folly, in seven cases out of ten. Not only are the fees and costs heavy-, but there is always (we speak entirely of equitable claims, not of suits in which technical points merely are involved) the probability of defeat, or of victory, rendered expensive by lawyers’ fees or by failure of the parties sued. And all this is outside the ultimate consequences of being recognised as one given to litigation. Such a man never enjoys much genuine regard at any one’s hands; and scarcely ever is he any better off than his neighbor who keeps clear of the law courts. A little more attention to accounts outstanding would very much obviate the necessity for “ going to law.” Of course there are many instances in which legal proceedings are absolutely required to frighten people who can pay into doing so. In such instances, it is fair and proper to bring the law to bear on defaulters. But there are numbers of cases in which the law is set in motion either too late,, or on individuals from whom it is futile to expect satisfaction, or after an inexcusable length of credit has been granted in the face of the known narrow circumstances of the debtor. Here the law is not put to its legitimate use.

So far of the trading community. But there are numberless instances of persons who drag into open Court disputes that ought never, on any principle of morality or common sense, to be heard of beyond the circle of persons concerned. We all know very well that domestic strife is a thing of daily occurrence; that to the two parties immediately interested it is painful in the extreme ; that to those involved, but only partially interested, it is also very painful. But .we know equally that the exhibition in Court of the proverbial “ skeleton in the closet,” furnishes only a matter for laughter. When the case comes to be fully heard from both sides, by disinterested persons, it is almost invariably found that, so far as the infliction of punishment or damages is concerned, “ there is not a pin to choose between them,” Why drag out all these details in open Court ? Better far to suffer in silence than to be laughed at, surely. We cannot always acquit Messieurs the lawyers in these matters. Our ideal lawyer is one who is not the slave of authorities and technicalities. He should be man of the world enough to look at trivial cases of this sort from a common-sense, as well as a legal aspect, and advise his clients accordingly. We sincerely trust that a little reflection will lead intending litigants to “ look before they leap.”