MAGISTRATE'S COURT PROCEDURE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10060, 3 June 1910, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT PROCEDURE.

IMPORTANT .TO LITIGANTS. Since May Ist a most important matter connected wilh Magistrate's Court litigation demands the earnest attention of intending litigants. The new rules under the Magistrate's Court Amendment Act of 1909 require that ali defendants who intend to defend a case must file a notice of their intention within five clear days after service of the summons. If this notice be not filed, they cannot come to Court and defend on the day of ; hearing, unless by special applica-1 unless they can show special grounds for the application. This sweeping step in procedure has already caused a good many litigants some surprise s>nd no little loss in certain cases. The matter was the subject of comment at the sitting of the Magistrate's Court at Masterton yesterday morning. Mr *(J. A. Pownall, who appeared for the defendant in a Mauriceville case, pointed out that he must allow the case to go by default, although the defendant wished to defend, because the defendant nad through ignorance failed to file a notice of intention to defend. Mr Pownall remarked that this requirement of the recent statute would prove a great handicap in a country district, where sattlers served with a summons at a distance came down to defend at the hearing, not thinking that any other step was. necessary. It was different in town where a defendant had easy access tn legal advice. Counsel stated that not one person in ten would nolice the indorsement on the s'immona as ;o giving notic? of intention to defend. It would be quite sufficient, if a party had failed to give notice to defend and then actually appeared to defend, that the plaintiff should be entitled to an adjournment with costs to enabla him to prepare his case, the only object of the statute being that he should not be required to do this without notics. Mr D. K. Logan, who "for plaintiff, said he was compelled to ask for judgment by default in the particular case, but at the same time he thoroughly concurred in the remarks of defendant's counsel. His Worship the Magistrate said the rule would undoubtedly prove a hardship in a country district, but unfortunately he could do nothing it,i the face of the statute. The matter was one for representation to the Justice Department.