WELLINGTON.

Thames Star, Volume IX, Issue 3018, 17 October 1878, Page 2

WELLINGTON.

Wednesday. IAW AMENDMENT BILL.

On the House resuming last night, the debate on the Law Amendment Sill was resumed. .

Mr Hislop morel that the Bill be read again that day six months, on the ground that it was too late in the session for a bill involving such a radicalchange in the practice o? the Supreme Courts. Mr Barton said it would take a lawyer a fortnight to fully understand the change it would make in the present' system. As a specimen of the radical change propoied by the Bill, he mentioned that under it any rules made by the judges hud only to be confirmed by the Goyernor-in-Council, winch* practically meant the Attorney-General for the time being. Under the present law new rules had to lie oa the table of the House for a whole session before coming into force. In plain English the bill proposed to place in the hands of the judges the power of legislating without any reference to, or control from, the House. As he read the bill, a judge under it could claim the right of deciding on matters of fact and so usurp the functions of the jury. Whether he was right or wrong in his reading a bill which required such close study should not be pressed this session. By abolishing this litigants were altogether debarred from appealing if the judge had decided against the law of the land. Mr Barton indicated other points of a similar character, but admitted that in the short time that had bsen allowed for examination of the Bill, he might be mistaken. The Bill ought to have been circulated some time ago. He agreed that reform was greatly needed. One of the chief changes he indicated as necessary was that after a jury had agreed upon questions of fact, there should be no appeal on questions of fact, unless on the ground of surprise, or where the finding of a jury was insufficient "for the Court to found a judgment jpon. Another great means of preventing vexatious trials would be to make parties agree before trial on the lump sum which was. to be paid as costs by the losing parties. Lawyers would then take care to do their work thoroughly, and there would be an end of long and mistakes of lawyers, necessitating appeal after appeal, would be very fare. At present the ends of justice were defeated by these continual appeals wearing out the poor client and driving him into the bankruptcy court. He instanced the case of Gillon y.

McDonald and others, where the plaintiff after repeated trials and appeals, obtained a decree which would have put between £2,000 r.u<J£3,C3O in his pocket, besides £700 fMsts. He was made a bankrupt-the same morning on a suit for £50 costs of a: \ interlocutory summons, and deprived oi the fruits ot his verdict, as his only creditors were the defendants, and, of course, did not. enforce the decree against them:• civ< s . . ,

The ( 11 vii. Ji. Stout replied to Mr Barton's objections. He denied that the Court rules must lie on the table of the House under the present law. In fact, the bill proposed no alteration whatever in the existing law, as relating to rules. If Mr Barton had read the bill fully he wou'c! have seen that it in no way referred to or abolished the jury. The right of appeal was preserved by the Court of Appeal Act. The abolition of the error merely prevented defendants upsetting the verdict, because of a blundti. 1 in a verdict, end [breed hini to take advantage of ihe blunder before the trial, if at all. He combated the other points raised by Mr Barton; ? and stated that the bill was n i<s chief Retails a copy of a recent English Act, which had been adopted in Queensland and other colonies. ; r Mr Brandon supported the bill.' . Mr Barton rose to make an explanation. He found that Mr Stoul was quite right as (o the publication of rules. He (Mr BarLon) was labouring under a misapprehension. ■ He would make no further opposition to the bill. The second reading of the bill was then carried on the. voices. Thursday was fixed for the committal of the bill, to give the legal profession an opportunity to study it. ADJOUBNMEET. After a debate, the House decided, by 38 to 19, <; > adjourn for the railway demonstration ball.