PEKING COURTROOM (June 20, 1956)

New Zealand Listener, Volume 35, Issue 902, 16 November 1956, Page 24

PEKING COURTROOM (June 20, 1956)

BY

H. W.

YOUREN

UR car stops at the Middle Court of Justice in the SSu Fah Pu Ch’ieh, a narrow lane im old Peking. The courthouse is new, clean and airy, but quite unpretentious. In the courtyard are some shrubs in porcelain flowerpots and a small well-cared-for flower plot. A few people are about, but not a uniform is visible, inside or out. My companions are two Australian journalists and a Japanese lawyer, all of us desiring a close-up of Chinese Communist justice in action. Our interpreter, after some inquiries, takes us upstairs, where we meet Mr. Lai, Vice-Director of the Middle Court and a former judge. He wears clothsoled shoes, blue cotton trousers and a cream jacket, and his manners are, of course, impeccable. (Alone of all the people of Peking I am wearing a tie in the June heat, and regretting it.) As we sit sipping green tea Mr. Lai courteously tells us about it all, This

is both a court of appeal from the District Courts and a court of first instance in certain serious cases, with separate civil and criminal jurisdictions. The litigants may employ lawyers if they wish, but the fees go to the Bar Association, by whom they are employed, not to individuals. He mentions the fees, and we agree that they are very low indeed. Perhaps individual lawyers will be enabled to practise again in China in the future, Mr. Lai surprisingly volunteers. He has arranged for us to be present at the hearing of a divorce suit, so he goes on to give us a thumbnail sketch of the situation.

The husband is 50, the wife 32; they are three

years married. Last year the husband applied for a divorce in the District Court because he was tired of his wife’s quarrelling with his son and daughter-in-law by a former marriage, who live in the same courtyard. The District Court refused an order. Now. however.

the wife has reopened the case, appealing on the ground that the hus‘band loves his son

and . Gaugnter-in-liaw too much and favours them with money and space at her expense. She demands a divorce, the right to occupy one of her husband’s three houses, and 25 yuan a month to live on. We descend to the court-a whitewashed room with the judges’ table slightly raised and covered with a plain white cloth. Mao Tse-Tung’s portrait beams down benevolently. The three judges (two women and a man) and the girl clerk appear, together with the litigants. There is hardly time to stand before the court is seated and under way. No policeman or usher is present, nor does anyone wear any badge or mark of authority. The six participants make up a symphony in every shade of blue, looking neat and unbothered despite the heat. The parties sit elbow to elbow

a few feet in front of the judges. The woman president elicits particulars of names and profession, and it appears that the respondent is an accountant. He is a solid figure of some twelve stone, and looks like the bookkeeper of some small business. His wife is half

his size, in dark blue trousers and light blue jacket. Her hair is combed back to a simple

knot on her neck, but no single strand is out of its appointed place. In repose her face has the hue and expression of an old Ming ivory Kwan Yin. The president patiently explains che decision of the District Court, arid the husband surprisingly agrees with this excellent reasoning. Not so, however, the wife, in whose favour the decision was awarded. She embarks upon a catalogue of her husband’s iniquities, and our interpreter wears a pained expression as he tries to follow her voluble Shantung speech. It seems that the son and daughter-in-law trouble has worsened. Her husband favours them at her expense, and is niggardly with the housekeeping money; a situation that can best be remedied if he will make over one of his houses to her, agree to a divorce, (continued'on next page)

(continued from previous page) and pay her 25 yuan a month. The husband, questioned as to whether he will agree to the divorce, becomes confused and "has no opinion." He fans his perspiring good-natured .face. The wife looses a further volley of reproaches upon her hapless spouse, to whom by now our sympathies have become firmly attached. He lamely agrees that he "over-loves" his son and daughter-in-law, but’ promises amends. He _ will arrange separate establishments and brick up the lane. in the courtyard that communicates with the in-laws, The judges look hopefylly at the wife, but she is not appeased, now averring that her husband is concealing part of his income to make it appear that he is poorer than he is, (Oh, universal wife!) He bridles and says he will send for his pay docket. In any «ase, it will all be solved if he bricks up the doorway and gives his wife some more house-. keeping money. Obviously he does not relish an order for 25 yuan per month, Further volleys issue from the lady in the case, now standing about three feet away from the presiding judge who, however, announces the adjournment for the court to consider its decision. . We wait, and the parties also wait in their chairs. The wife makes good use of the opportunity to revile her: spouse. He turns and appeals fo us, saying that his wife is stubborn and narrow-minded, with which proposition we inwardly agree, but give no sign. Soon the judges return, all stand, and the president announces their decision not to disturb the verdict of the District Court. All sit, and the president proceeds to explain the ratio decidendi. First the hapless husband receives a wigging for not settling the quarrels in his family circle; next the wife for failing in her duty as a member of the senior generation to promote family harmony. The court then opines that the matter is one that must be settled by the parties themselves under Article 8 of the Marriage Law, which states that husband and wife must respect each other and practise mutual help and understanding. Asked if he will do ‘this ‘the husband says that he will try. The court then agrees that his wife is stubborn and narrow-minded, but reminds him that he has therefore a duty to re-educate her. At this the lady sobs, and the husband rashly promises to make over all his salary to her. As the court rises the wife hastens to loose her final bolt, "You can’t deny they’ll still be living with us!" Afterwards we seize the opportunity to ask vice-director Lai. whether the judges are: trained lawyers or laymen. He replies: "They all have legal train-ing-some before, some after, Liberation." One gathers that the District Court judges might not all be so trained. "We still have to make good many shortcomings in our work," says Mr. Lai. Where have we not heard that before? As we leave we see our first uniforma white-coated policeman answering inquiries in the doorman’s box. ee _ Out in the lane once more, I reflect on other Asian law courts recently visited in Delhi and Calcutta, and conclude that the dignity of tribunals does not reside in wigs or robes and ceremonial, but in the courtesy and patience of judges and in the patent impartiality of their decisions.