Page images
PDF
EPUB

meaning are English. The name of the thing shall be French, as we are impotent to alter it; but the thing itself we will treat as English; which will be sufficient for our purpose, because where and while the matrimonial home is English, and the wrong is done here, the English jurisdiction exists."

J. ALDERSON FOOTE.

V. THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF COUNTY

A

COURT JURISDICTION.

NEW departure in legal reform is about to be under

taken with the object of appeasing the discontent which prevails regarding the dilatory administration of justice in the Superior Courts. In order to expedite the dispatch of judicial business, the Lord Chancellor has introduced a Bill whereby he hopes to divert into new channels all causes of minor moment. According to the proposed measure, the County Courts, with extended jurisdiction, are to be the receptacle for this class of litigation. Before, however, entering upon a discussion of the Bill, it may not be unimportant to trace the development of those inferior tribunals.

Without dwelling upon the origin, expansion, and decline of the ancient shire-moot, the historic progenitor of the existing County Courts, we pass at once to the real foundation of their modern jurisdiction, the 9 & 10 Vict., c. 95, "An Act for the more easy recovery of small debts and demands." By this Statute, County Courts were re-constituted, and jurisdiction conferred upon them in personal actions where the debt or damage claimed was not more than £20, except in ejectment, or where the title to any

corporeal or incorporeal hereditaments, or to any toll, fair, market, or franchise, was in dispute, or where the validity of any devise, bequest, or limitation under a will or settlement was in question, or where the action was for malicious prosecution, or for libel or slander, crim. con., seduction, or breach of promise of marriage. By Sec. 122* of the same Act, jurisdiction was given for the recovery of possession of tenements where the value or rent of the premises did not exceed £50 annually. The Act of 1852 (13 & 14 Vict., c. 61, s. 1) raised the jurisdiction of County Courts for the recovery of debt, damage or demand, from £20 to £50. Sec. 24 of the 19 & 20 Vict., c. 108, still further extended the operation of the previous Act by permitting the Court to have jurisdiction where the claim had been reduced by set off to £50. Under Sec. 23 of the same Act the parties might, by consent in writing, render the County Court capable of entertaining any action whatever which might be brought in a Superior Court of Common Law (not of Equity) save an action for crim. con. The County Courts Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 142, SS. II & 12) enabled actions of ejectment, and those in which the title was in question, to be brought in a County Court where neither the annual rent nor value of the property exceeded £20 per annum, but the defendant might apply by summons at Chambers to remove such action into a Superior Court where the title to lands or hereditaments of greater annual value would be affected by the decision in the County Court. By a previous Act (19 & 20 Vict., c. 108, s. 26) a Judge of a Superior Court had power on application of either party, in an action of contract for a sum not exceeding £50, on terms after issue joined, to send the issue for trial to a County Court, and by Sec. 7 of the Act of 1867, a Judge might, before issue joined, remit such action, unless good cause was shown to the contrary. So too in an action for malicious prosecution,

*Repealed, but virtually re-enacted by Sec. 50 of 19 & 20 Vict., c. 108. This action was abolished by 20 & 21 Vict., c. 85.

illegal arrest, illegal distress, assault, false imprisonment, libel, slander, seduction, or other action of tort, irrespective of the damages claimed, a Judge of the Superior Court might, on the defendant's application, unless the plaintiff gave security for costs or satisfied him that it was a fit action to be tried in a Superior Court, transfer it to the County Court (Sec. 10 of 30 & 31 Vict., c. 142).

In the years 1865 and 1867, the 28 & 29 Vict., c. 99, and 30 & 31 Vict., c. 142, conferred upon the County Courts the principal portion of their equitable jurisdiction. These Statutes enabled the County Courts to exercise all the power and authority of the Court of Chancery where the value of the property claimed, or the amount in dispute, did not exceed £500, in administration suits, suits for the execution of trusts, partition, foreclosure, or redemption, enforcing any charge or lien, specific performance, reforming, delivering up, or cancelling of any agreement for the sale, purchase, or lease of property, and the dissolution and winding-up of partnerships; and in proceedings under the Trustee Relief or Trustee Act, or relating to the maintenance or advancement of infants, or for orders in the nature of injunctions requisite for the granting of relief in the above cases, or for a stay of proceedings at law to recover any debt provable under a decree for the administration of an estate made by the Court to which application for the order to stay proceedings was made. The County Court also derived equity jurisdiction from other Acts, such as the Charitable Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1860;* and Sec. 8 of 30 & 31 Vict., c. 142, empowered a Judge of the Court of Chancery to transmit. any suit or proceeding, which might have been commenced in such superior Court to the County Court, upon the application of either party or without such application. In 1868 the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 71, invested County Courts with Admiralty jurisdiction, and this jurisdiction was enlarged

* 16 & 17 Vict., c. 137, s. 32; 23 & 24 Vict., c. 136, s. 11; also, 17 & 18 Vict., c. 112; 18 & 19 Vict., c. 63; and 25 & 26 Vict., c. 87.

by the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict., c. 51). During the same Session, Parliament conferred upon these Courts unlimited jurisdiction in Bankruptcy (32 & 33 Vict., c. 71).

In particularizing the variety of matters in which the County Courts were empowered to administer justice, numerous Statutes still remain to be noticed; of these a bare mention must suffice. Of measures passed in 1874 may be cited the Building Societies Act, the Alkali Act, the Married Women's Property Amendment Act, the Infants' Relief Act, the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, the Vendor and Purchasers Act, the Intestates' Widows and Children Act. Of the measures passed in 1875, which more or less intimately concern the County Courts, reference may be made to the Public Health Act, the Friendly Societies Act, the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, the Land Transfer Act, the Employers and Workmen Act, and the Copyright of Designs Act.

The Legislature has protected the jurisdiction of County Courts by enacting that, where an action might have been commenced in the County Court, the plaintiff shall be deprived of his costs in the Superior Court, unless he recover more than £20 in contract or £10 in tort, except the Judge otherwise certify (Sec. 5 of 30 & 31 Vict., c. 142). This proviso was restricted to Common Law actions, but by Sec. 67 of the Judicature Act, 1873, it has been rendered applicable to all actions commenced or pending in the High Court of Justice, in which any relief is sought which is obtainable in the County Court.*

To assist those who are unfamiliar with County Court practice and procedure in arriving at their own conclusions respecting the proposed scheme, it has been deemed expedient to indicate thus far the course of previous legislation.

No less than three Bills altering the jurisdiction and procedure of County Courts were introduced in the House

* See Parsons v. Tinling, L.R. 2 C.P.D. 119, approved in Garnett v. Bradley, L.R. 3 H.L. (E.) 944.

of Commons in 1878. These were referred to a Select Committee, which sat for seventeen days and examined upwards of thirty witnesses, among whom were Lord Justice Bramwell, and many County Court Judges and Registrars. The Report recommends an extension of jurisdiction in Common Law matters up to £200, but the Committee are unfavourable to any extension of jurisdiction in Equity. The average number of Equity cases tried throughout the year was eleven to each circuit, a circumstance which in itself proves the Act of 1865 to have been a failure. The Committee consider it desirable to permit actions for malicious prosecution to be brought in the County Courts, as they closely border on those for false imprisonment now dealt with by these tribunals. Report deprecates any increase of jurisdiction protected by costs; it recommends that the salaries of the Judges should be raised to £2,000 per annum, with a pension of two-thirds of their salaries after twenty years' service, and condemns the present system which allows Registrars to practise as solicitors.

The

Mr. Norwood and Mr. Cowen have again this Session presented Bills to extend the jurisdiction of the County Court. The measure of the former is a mere reproduction of the suggestions of last year's Committee, but the Bill of the member for Newcastle is far more ambitious. In accordance with the recommendations of the Judicature Commission, it proposes to constitute County Courts branches of the High Court; to confer upon them unlimited jurisdiction, subject to the defendant's right to object to the jurisdiction in claims above £200 on the Common Law side and £2,000 in Equity; and to apply to the inferior tribunals the practice under the Judicature Acts wherever the amount claimed exceeds the present limit. Now, however, that the Government has taken up the matter, there is little likelihood of either of these measures being crystallized into law, and detailed criticism of them therefore seems unnecessary.

« PreviousContinue »