Page images
PDF
EPUB

County Courts is in a satisfactory condition; the other, that no change is needed to adapt it to the new order of things. That neither of these propositions accords with the fact, the following details will readily demonstrate.

The founders of the modern County Courts started with a procedure which can only be called paternal. Suitors they treated as children inexperienced in the ways of the world. With fatherly forethought they protected litigants from the dangerous influence of solicitors by placing the legal business under the supreme control and management of the Court officials, who, with an eye to their own interests, charged very high fees and allowed very low costs. No plaintiff could be permitted to serve his own summons on the defendant, nor to procure the attendance of his witnesses; neither party was free to pay or receive money to or from the other; and in every case, however trivial, a trial had to be held. As time wore on, vast improvements were introduced into the procedure of the Superior Courts, but the wave of progress made few incursions on these inferior tribunals; they profited little from the good example set them. Truly, the parental procedure has been somewhat relaxed, and here and there a breach has been effected in it, but the moving spirit still survives, and reluctantly gives way only after adding some proviso of restraint to every movement of reform.

It was not until 1867 that the power of issuing a summons, upon which judgment could be obtained in default of defence, and thus, without a compulsory trial, was grudgingly granted to plaintiffs in respect of trade debts. This privilege was somewhat extended by Sec. 1 of the Act of 1875, but as usual with harassing restrictions. The debt sued for must be either for the price, or value, or hire of goods to be dealt with or used in the way of trade, or the amount must exceed £5, unless the Registrar give leave.* In ordinary cases the plaintiff has not yet been

[blocks in formation]

trusted with the responsibility of serving his own summons. The Registrar issues it to the bailiff, by whom it has to be served,* and the same rule holds good as regards default summonses, unless the solicitor to the plaintiff states in writing at the time of entering the plaint, that he wishes to serve the default summons either by himself, his clerk, or servant in his permanent exclusive employ. In that event an affidavit of service must be filed, together with a copy of the summons. What reason can be assigned for refusing the parties liberty to serve their own process according to the practice in the Superior Courts, except to keep as much as possible of the process serving in the hands of the bailiffs? Affidavits are now being freely used in County Courts for proof of debt and of service. And why could not a plaintiff file an affidavit and take out a summons, as well as in the High Court, under Order XIV., and with the same result? The present practice of judgment by default is as unfair to creditors as it is favourable to debtors.

The necessity in many cases for proceeding against a debtor in his own locality, however distant, and the obligation to take witnesses to that district to prove the case, inflict serious inconvenience and expense on the mercantile community. It has been suggested that, in cases where mercantile houses employ travellers, the plaintiff ought to be allowed costs of conveyance to and from the defendant's district. This plan would mitigate the evil, but the true remedy is to be found in the adoption of Order XXXVI., Rule 1, of the Judicature Act, whereby local venues are abolished in actions brought in the superior Courts. Should the present Bill become law, it will greatly cripple the operation of this salutary regulation.

Adequate facilities for trying contested cases are at present entirely absent in County Court practice. Disputed

County Court Rules, 1875, Order II., Rule 20; Order VIII., Rule 25.
+ County Court Rules, 1875, Order IV., Rule 6.
County Court Rules, 1875, Order IV., Rule 7.

actions need a tribunal of something like weight and authority, always accessible for interlocutory applications. To administer interrogatories, or to get further particulars, application to a Judge is absolutely imperative. It is practically impossible for parties in a County Court to discover by interrogatories and inspection of books and documents what the real issues are. The County Court Judges attempted, by the Consolidated Orders of 1875, to give interrogatories, inspection, and discovery; but the provisions have been found to work so inefficaciously, that the practice is never resorted to. With regard to interrogatories, for example, the plaintiff or defendant may, under the Consolidated Orders, administer them; but leave must previously be obtained from the Registrar, and the application must be supported by an affidavit, which the applicant is required to file. Such affidavit must be made by himself and his solicitor or agent, or, by leave of the Registrar, by his solicitor or agent only, stating that the deponent believes that material benefit will be derived in the action from the discovery he seeks, and that there is a good cause of action or defence on the merits.* On administering interrogatories to the other side in the County Court, the opposite party answers, or refuses to answer, at his peril; there is no order made by the Judge, as there is in the Superior Court, that the interrogatories shall be answered, and when the cause comes to be tried, if the party has not answered them, the Judge may adjourn the case if he thinks that they ought to have been answered, or he may, if he chooses, order it to proceed; so that both parties go to trial without

*County Court Rules, 1875, Order XIII., Rule 6. Compare Order XXXI., Rule 1, of Judicature Act, 1875, which enables the plaintiff, at the time of delivering his Statement of Claim, and the defendant at the time of delivering his Statement of Defence, or at any subsequent time not later than the close of the pleadings, to deliver interrogatories to the opposite party, without any order for the purpose. The County Courts have thrown still greater difficulties in the way of the party seeking discovery, by rendering the intervention of the Registrar and bailiff indispensable.

being able to form the least opinion of what is going to happen. The same thing is true of what is done by the County Court Judges with regard to the production of documents, their inspection and discovery, and yet the success of a trial constantly depends upon a thorough scrutiny of an adversary's documents. In anything like real litigation it is utterly impracticable to take a cause to issue without such information.

The want of pleadings is an equal disadvantage in the County Courts: there, none exist, nor is there a formal joinder of issue;* but the defendant, who intends to rely on an equitable or statutory defence, or to set up a counterclaim, or plea of set-off, infancy, coverture, Statute of Limitations, discharge under the Bankruptcy Act, tender, truth to a libel or apology, must give notice to the Registrar of the Court, who communicates the same to the plaintiff.† The usefulness of pleading is that it enables the parties to know to a certainty the point that is going to be raised, or in other words, it compels each side to apprise the other of what it is he intends to controvert, not for the purpose of giving information, but that he may be tied down to the case as it presents itself on the pleadings. There is also another advantage; if particulars of demand only are obtainable, a cause can never be determined upon demurrer. All the points of law and every conceivable fact remain in dispute. An extension of jurisdiction, founded upon the Lord Chancellor's Bill, would place litigants in a more sorry plight than they were in the Superior Courts in the old days of what were called "general issues." At the present time, when the system of pleading has been developed with so much care and elaboration, this retrogressive movement-this recurrence to a faulty and obsolete procedure -coming as it does from a quarter whence it might

[blocks in formation]

+ Ibid., s. 76; Order IX., Rules 1-16; Order XX., Rule 4.

least have been expected, fills us with amazement and dismay.

The Consolidated Rules have conferred upon litigants the long-yearned-for privilege of summoning their own witnesses without leave of the Court.* Such summonses though, must be obtained at the office of the Court, and for the service of them, the bailiff's interposition is deemed obligatory, unless the Judge or Registrar sees fit to delegate the duty to the party or his solicitor, or to some person in the permanent or exclusive employ of either. No mere stranger is permitted to take upon himself this responsible office.

More fortunate than their brethren of the common juries, from whose ranks they are selected, the jurymen of the County Court receive remuneration at the rate of one shilling a piece for each verdict returned by them.† Jurymen, however, are never summoned unless one of the parties desires to submit the issue to their decision, and as that which is left to people's option is seldom adopted if they have to take some active steps, jury cases in the County Court are like angels' visits-few and far between. There is yet another reason why trial by jury in the County Court is the exception rather than the rule. To speak plainly, some of the County Court Judges discountenance the practice on account of the extra amount of time it occupies, whilst others regard it as a want of confidence in their capacity or integrity. It would be inopportune here to enter upon a defence of the jury system, but as we are upon the subject, it is worth while noting Lord Justice Bramwell's reply to a question from the Chairman of the Select Committee of last Session. "I think," said he, "the jury system popularises the law; there is one good thing about them, namely, that they are the true Court of Equity; they mitigate the rigour of the law by going wrong every now and then. A man must have

* Order XIV., Rule 1.

+ 9 & 10 Vict., c. 95, s. 71.

« PreviousContinue »