Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 32

Supreme Court

Supreme Court

will fail to serve the purposes for which it was constituted. One or two suggestions may not be unworthy of consideration. The jurisdiction of the District Courts might be extended so as to enable them to take cognizance of all cases over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, except certain special business, such as cases of divorce, remedial writs, &c, in which matters the Supreme Court could retain original jurisdiction, and be an Appellate Court in other respects. The facts of a case could be ascertained at comparatively little expense in a District Court, and a simple mode of appeal provided whereby either party dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court on the law bearing on the facts could have had it reviewed by the Supreme court. Another course might be adopted, namely, to simplify the procedure in the Supreme Court. The system of involved pleadings might be improved by making it more simple and less hazardous to litigants. Even under the present practice the real facts in controversy are frequently page 5 not discovered until near the close of a long trial, or probably not until it is over. The result is a miscarriage of justice, eventuating in an application for a new trial at considerable expense; the second trial may be attended with no more satisfactory result. The merits of a case are, under the present rules of pleading, occasionally sacrificed, neither judge nor jury being permitted to give an opinion on them. Moreover, the expenses of an action in the Supreme Court are excessive, and are almost the same in amount whether the money or property at stake is much or little. An action for £200 in the District Court may be heard and determined at a cost of about £25, whilst one in the Supreme Court for, say £220, may entail on the losing party a sum for costs in excess of the amount sued for. Indeed, there are many cases in which the sum for which a verdict is given forms but a small item in the total amount which the defendant has to pay. Nor does a successful plaintiff always reap much from the fruits of his judgment. His solicitor may have incurred a great deal of expense in resisting vexatious interlocutory applications in Chambers on the part of the defendant. In addition to these considerations one out of many illustrations may be given to show how imperfect and in some respects incongruous the present practice is. An application may be made to a judge in Chambers on summons taken out by one party to have the pleadings of the opposite party amended or struck out. The learned judge, after listening to elaborate arguments by the solicitors on either side, and after taking time to consider his decision may give judgment in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with it, may make an application in Banco for a rule nisi to rescind the order made in Chambers. After argument, a rule nisi may be granted, and in due course set down for argument by the same solicitors, who are now, however, designated counsel. They may repeat the same arguments, cite the same cases, and the result of all this may be that the Court (represented by the learned judge who sat in Chambers) affirms the decision of the learned judge who made the order. The costs of the application in Chambers were probably not more than two or three guineas, whilst those connected with the proceedings in Banco not unlikely involve the losing page 6 party in a liability of £30 or £40. Of course many of you are no doubt aware how interminable some actions are, one motion after another being made in Chambers and in Banco until the question which the cause was commenced to settle becomes of secondary importance. On the other hand the practice in some of the