« EelmineJätka »
New Statutes effecting Alterations in the Law.
in which such parish, town, or place is situate shall not give notice, under the said section twenty of the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty, that he is ready to undertake the charge of such parish, town, or place, without the previous authority of one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State; and notice of the intention of the chief constable to apply to the Secretary of State for such authority shall be published by such chief constable in such parish, town, or place, in manner directed by the said section twenty respecting the publication of the notice therein mentioned, fourteen days at least before such application is made.
20. No agreement made under section fourteen of the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty shall be put an end to without the sanction of one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.
21. Section twenty-four of the said act or the third and fourth years of her Majesty shall be repealed.
22. Where a station house or strong room shall have been provided under the said art of the third and fourth years of her Majesty, section twelve, for any police district or division within any county in which the provisions of the said act of the second and third years of her Majesty, have not been put in force throughout the whole of such county before the passing of this act, and the cost of such station or strong room has been incurred out of, or now remains wholly or in part chargeable on, the police rate for such police district or division, the justices of the peace for the county wherein such police district or division is situate, at any quarter sessions to be held after the passing of this act, shall or may purchase such station house or strong room for such sum of money as may be determined by such justices, and hold the same for and on behalf of the county or riding for the purposes of this act, and pay the purchase monies for the same out of the general county rate for the said county; and where the cost of erecting such station house or strong room shall, at the passing of this act, be chargeable by way of mortgage, either wholly or in part, on the police rates for such police district or division, it shall be lawful for the said justices to transfer such charge from the police rates leviable in such police district or division to and continue such charge upon the county rate of the county in which such police district or division shall be situate; and the police rates of the said police district or division shall be thenceforth discharged from all future payments in respect of the said station house or strong room; and all mortgages or other instruments then operating by way of charge on the said police rates in respect of such station house or strong room shall be thereafter deemed to be charges on the general county rate of the said county, in the same manner as if the same had been originally charged on such county rate, and such station house or strong room shall thenceforth be the property of the said county for the purposes of this act.
23. For facilitating the purchase of lands and tenements for the purposes mentioned in section twelve of the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty, the provisions of "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," except the provisions with respect to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement, shall be incorporated with the said act of the third and fourth year of her Majesty and this act; and the expression "the promoters of the undertaking," in the said Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, shall for the purposes of such incorporation mean the justices of the peace of any
county in general or quarter sessions assembled; and the powers of providing station houses and strong rooms contained in sections twelve and thirteen of the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty and this act shall extend to authorise the providing of such station houses and strong rooms within any borough lying within or adjoining to the county for which the same may be provided.
24. The act of the seventh year of King George the Fourth, chapter eighteen, "To authorise the Disposal of unnecessary Prisons in England," shall extend to and include all station houses, lock-up houses, strong rooms, and the sites thereof, and all other lands and tenements whatsoever, which may at any time be vested in the justices of the peace of any county, or in any persons in trust for them, for the purposes of the police, and which in the judgment of such justices shall, for any reason whatever, have become unnecessary.
25. And whereas, in the county of Chester. a constabulary force is now maintained and regulated under "The Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852," the said Cheshire constabulary force shall continue to act in their respective appointments, and shall be subject to the same authorities as heretofore; and "The Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852," shall continue in force until a day to be notified by the chief constable to be appointed for the said county of Chester by writing under his hand to the justices for the said county in generel quarter sessions assembled, as that on which he will be ready to take the charge of the said county, which notice shall be published within the said county in such manner as shall seem fit to the said justices; and upon the day so named the said Cheshire constabulary force shall be discontinued, and the powers and provisionsof "The Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852," shall cease and determine: provided always, that any rate authorised by "The Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852," and duly made previously to the day on which the chief constable shall undertake the charge of the county of Chester as aforesaid, shall be levied and collected in the same manner as if this act had not been passed; and all sums of money collected and received, and not then applied, and to be collected and received as and for rates levied under the powers and authorities of "The Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852," shall be applied, after defraying all charges to which the same shall be liable, in and towards payment of the police rates to be levied under this act and the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty, upon the respective townships and places within the hundreds or divisions of hundreds in the said county of Chester, by which hundreds or divisions of hundreds such sums of money shall have been respectively contributed, and shall be apportioned as nearly as may be rateably according to the proportions thereof respectively contributed by such townships or places; and the application of such monies by the clerk of the peace for the said county of Chester, certified and allowed by any two justices of the county, shall be binding and conclusive: provided also, that in case the rates levied and collected under "The Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852," within any such hundred or division, shall be insufficient to defray the charges to which the same shall be liable, the deficiency shall be paid out of the rates to be levied within the said county of Chester under this act and the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty.
26. Provided further, that in case two chief constables shall be appointed for the said county of Chester
New Statutes effecting Alterations in the Law.-Criminal Law Procedure.
under section four of the said act of the second and third years of her Majesty, the last preceding section of this act shall be read and construed as applicable to separate districts of each of such two chief constables, and as if the same had been specially enacted with reference to such separate district instead of the whole county.
27. The superannuation fund formed under "The Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852," shall (after repayment thereout to such officers of the said Cheshire constabulary force who may not be appointed officers under this act and the said acts of the second and third and third and fourth years of her Majesty, of such sums of money as shall have been deducted from their respective salaries, or contributed by them respectively to such superannuation fund, which repayments shall be made by the treasurer of such fund accordingly) form part of the superannuation fund to be formed in the said county of Chester under the provisions of the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty; and any allowance which the justices of the said county of Chester have, by virtue of the said Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852, ordered to be paid out of the superannuation fund under that act, shall thereafter be paid out of the superannuation fund to be formed under the provisions of the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty.
28. The service of any officer in the said Cheshire constabulary force who shall be appointed an officer under this act and the said acts of the second and third and third and fourth years of her Majesty, shall be considered an equivalent to a service under such acts, for the purpose of estimating the allowance to be paid to any such officer out of the superannuation fund to be formed in the said county of Chester under the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty.
29. An allowance which the justices of the said county of Chester have, by virtue of "The Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852," ordered to be paid to the widow of a constable who died in the execution of his duty, out of the rates to be levied and made on the hundred of Wirral under that act, shall be paid out of and be chargeable on the rates to be levied within the said county of Chester by virtue of this act and the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty, or on such one of the said rates, if such there be, as the justices of the said county in general quarter sessions assembled shall from time to time order and direct.
30. The word "county"shall, in this act, have the same meaning as is assigned to such word in the said act of the third and fourth years of her Majesty, except as to the soke or liberty of Peterborough, in the county of Northampton, which, for all purposes of this and the several recited acts shall be deemed and taken to be a county of itself; and the several provisions in this act and the recited acts shall apply and operate in, for, and concerning the said soke or liberty accordingly; and the word "borough" shall mean any city, borough, or place incorporated under the provisions of the said act of the fifth and sixth years of King William the Fourth, or which has otherwise become subject to the provisions of the same act; and every part of the Cinque Ports, two ancient towns of Winchelsea and Rye, and their several members and liberties, which is not within the municipal boundaries of a place named in one of the schedules (A) and (B) to the last-mentioned act, shall, for the purposes of the said acts of her Majesty and this act, be deemed to form part of the county in which the same is situate, and shall be dealt with,
under the said acts of her Majesty and this act, as a liberty, which, under the said acts of her Majesty, forms part of a county, notwithstanding it may be a member or liberty of a place named in one of the said schedules.
31. The said acts of the second and third and of the third and fourth years of her Majesty and this act, shall be construed together as one.
32. Nothing in this act shall extend to any part of the metropolitan police district or to the City of London.
I. OF APPOINTING AN ATTORNEY TO CONDUCT THE PROSECUTION,
Ir is extremely desirable that some regulation should be made as to the employment of attorneys to conduct the prosecution. It is in vain to suppose that any prosecution will be so conducted as to bring the case properly to trial unless it be contided to the hands of some competent person; but in many cases no attorney is at present employed, and in others low attorneys, by improper means, obtain the conduct of the prosecution for the sole purpose of getting all they can out of it, and wholly regardless of what the result of the case may be. It is submitted, that great benefit would accrue if the justice, at the time when he committed or bound over the prisoner, were required, as a general rule, to ask the prosecutor whether he intended to employ an attorney, and to write the name of any attorney he might select on the depositions; or, if the prosecutor did not name any attorney, or there was no one who could be considered as a prosecutor, that the justice should either appoint some attorney to conduct the prosecution, and write his name upon the depositions, or should direct the district officer hereinafter named to employ some attorney to conduct the prosecution. Such might well be the general rule; but there are some cases in which it would be well that the justices should exercise a discretion, although a prosecutor did appear. It is well observed by Mr. Brandt, a gentleman of very great experience in criminal proceedings (8 Rep. R. C. L. C. p. 303)-"The right of a private individual, who may be named as prosecutor, to appoint an attorney may be and is, I think, liable to abuse, and productive of mischief when such persons are in a low condition of life; for it often happens that, on strong solicitation by such parties, they appoint attorneys of incompetent abilities or inferior character, and through their own negligence, as well as that of their attorneys, they do not effectively carry out the prosecution. On the other hand, cases may occur where it may be extremely desirable that parties should be allowed to appoint their own attorney to conduct the prosecution." And he suggests that, "if the party injured made known to the magistrates, at the time of the investigation, that he wished to conduct the prosecution by his own attorney, that the magistrate should have the discretion of so allowing him to prosecute." The better rule would seem to be, that a prosecutor should be considered entitled, as of right, to appoint his own attorney, unless from his poverty or from his relationship to the defendant, or from other circumstances, the magistrates should be of opinion that the prosecution would not be properly conducted; and in such case it should be lawful for them, in their discretion, either to appoint an attorney, or to direct the district officer to appoint one as above mentioned.
Wherever an attorney's name appeared on the depositions, or an attorney was employed by the district officer, no other attorney should be allowed any costs for conducting the prosecution, unless he satisfied the court that there was reasonable ground for his conducting the prosecution instead of such other attorney.
It may be objected that this proposal, if carried into effect, would probably, in many instances, lead to the clerk to the magistrates being appointed to conduct the prosecutions. Even if this should turn out to be the case, the objection does not appear to be of any great weight, for there can be no question as a general rule that the clerks to the magistrates conduct prosecutions quite as well as other attorneys, and that they are not justly liable to the imputation of advising the magistrates to send improper cases for trial. And it must be observed that such clerks stand in a position which affords them considerable advantages, all tending to the benefit of the public. They necessarily become acquainted with the case from the beginning; they see the witnesses examined, and can thereby form an opinion as to their conduct in the witness-box; they require no copies of the depositions; in addition, it frequently happens now that one clerk conducts several cases at the sessions or assizes, and his remuneration for attendance may therefore be less for each case than that for the attendance of an attorney who has only one case there; and thus a saving to the public may be properly effected.
The appointment of an attorney when the case is before the magistrate would probably entirely destroy a most mischievous practice, thus described by Mr. Blagg (8 Rep, Rev. C. L. C. 325),—“ a practice of late years has sprung up amongst the low grade of attorneys, always to be found in a country town, to traverse the whole country to look after the poorer class of prosecutors, and call upon them, and by cunning misrepresentations to induce them to give them authority in writing to conduct the prosecution, their sole object being to get hold of the county allowance, without the slightest anxiety as to the results of the prosecution; and from their connection with the description of persons constituting prisoners and their friends, they would be as likely as not to connive at a prisoner's escape rather than use any diligence to procure his conviction; and men of this stamp very commonly do not content themselves with the sum allowed to the attorney, but pocket a part of that granted to the prosecutor and witnesses, and frequently keep them at the county town several days after the prosecution is over before they will pay them any portion of the expenses allowed them; and amongst this kind of practitioners are some persons who are not attorneys at all, but pretend to be acting as the clerks of an attorney at a distance, who lends his name under a compact between them. I state all this as passing in this county (Staffordshire) under my own actual observation."
II. OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF COUNSEL AND
Usually both counsel and attorneys are employed in prosecutions at the assizes, and great complaints have been made by learned judges where that has not been the case; and it is conceived that the costs of both counsel and attorney are invariably allowed at the assizes; but this is by no means the case at the sessions. Different sessions have established different rules on this subject, and it is to be feared that these rules have, in some instances at least,
been made rather with a view to saving the expense in the first instance than with reference to the repression of crime, which ought ever to be looked upon as the primary object of all criminal prosecution.
In some counties the justices at sessions have made it a rule not to allow the expenses of either attorney or counsel, unless the justice who commits or bails the defendant certifies that the case is one in which they ought to be employed. Such a rule appears to be made without any legal authority. The 7th Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 22, enacts, that "the court before which any person shall be prosecuted or tried for any felony is hereby authorized and empowered, at the request of the prosecutor, or of any other person who shall appear on recognizance or subpœna, to prosecute or give evidence against any person accused of any felony, to order payment unto the prosecutor of the costs and expenses which such prosecutor shall incur in preferring the indictment, and also payment to the prosecutor and witnesses for the prosecution of such sums of money as to the court shall seem reasonable and sufficient to reimburse such prosecutor and witnesses for the expenses they shall have severally incurred in attending before the examining magistrate and the grand jury, and in otherwise carrying on such prosecution; and also to compensate them for their trouble and loss of time therein," &c. &c. This clause clearly includes the costs of attorney and counsel, and under it they have always been allowed. Then by sec. 26 of the same act it is provided, that "it shall be lawful for the justices of the peace of any county, riding, &c., in quarter sessions assembled, to establish and from time to time alter such regulations as to the rate of any costs and expenses thereafter to be allowed by virtue of this act, as to them shall seem just and reasonable." It seems quite clear that this clause only empowers the justices to establish a scale of allowance for each particular item, and by no meaas authorises them to determine that in certain cases no costs whatever shall be allowed for a particular item. Every prosecutor has a right to employ an attorney and counsel, and the justices have no more right to make a rule that in certain cases the prosecutor shall not be allowed the expense of counsel and attorney than that he shall not be allowed the expense of any one of his witnesses. The power also of determining where costs are to be allowed belongs to the court alone; whereas the rule in question in effect delegates that power to the committing magistrate. The 14 & 15 Vie c. 55, s. 4, however, has taken away from the justices in sessions the power of making regulations as to the scale of costs under the 7th Geo. 3, c. 64, s. 26, and transferred that power, by sec. 5, to one of the Secretaries of State. Unfortunately, however, the regulations made by the justices were to continue in force until new regulations were made by the Secretary of State; and if any such regulations have been made, it is very recently.
Mr. Blagg, clerk to the magistrates, states (8 Rep. Rev. C. L. C. p. 325), that in Staffordshire the county does not make any allowance to a solicitor at the sessions; but in order that the court may have the assistance of counsel, an arrangement has been made by the magistrates at the sessions for paying the partner of the acting clerk of the peace a fixed small fee in each case for copying the depositions, as sent in by the magistrates in the shape of a brief, and delivering it to counsel." And Mr. Blagg well states the objection to this
Criminal Procedure.-Law of Vendor and Purchaser.
plan to be-First. It is matter of very doubtful propriety to make a person so closely connected with the clerk of the peace the common prosecutor of all indictments in the court where he is the presiding officer. Second. It must evidently lead to an immense number of acquittals, inasmuch as he pays no attention whatever to the evidence about to be adduced, but simply employs a boy to copy it, and hand it to counsel in rotation, upon a principle of equal division, without any reference to the qualifications of counsel; whereas it is well known that in many cases some further evidence is required to ensure the verdict beyond that which was ample to justify a commitment, and especially as regards mere technical proofs, which are frequently left to be looked after by those who conduct the prosecution; and as regards the accuracy of the indictment, an officer of this kind leaves it entirely to the prosecutor to prefer his bill and give his own instructions; and if there be any nicety as to ownership, or other legal points, they are entirely overlooked, and very probably a mistake is made which leads to an acquittal upon mere form. Third. Then even suppose the indictment to prove correct by chance, and the evidence taken by the magistrate sufficient for a conviction, there is no little inconvenience felt by the prosecutor going to the sessions, perhaps, for the first time in his life, and having no solicitor to direct him were to go to prefer his indictment and to look after its being prepared, and sent before the grand jury, to watch the bill being found, and to instruct him and his witnesses when and where they will be wanted, and to expedite the business, so that the trial may be quickly disposed of, and all the parties set at liberty to return home."
With reference to the general question as to the employment of an attorney to conduct the prosecution, it is stated in the answers of the committee of the Justices' Clerks Society (8 Rep. Rev. C. L. C. P. 320), that many important cases of prosecution (important as respects the nature of the offence and the depravity of the offender) are rendered abortive for want of proper evidence being obtained, the witnesses not being brought together at the right moment, and kept from improper bias, and the whole case not presented to the court and jury in a clear and intelligible form, and all by reason of the absence of some controlling hand to direct and regulate all the many and complicated proceedings which the law interposes between the original charge and the final conviction of a criminal; because, as the law now stands, it is clearly not within the province of the committing justices or their clerk to seek for and obtain full and conclusive evidence in every case brought before them; their duty being properly and efficiently performed if, on the evidence brought before them by the prosecutor, a case of reasonable suspicion be established, they commit for trial, leaving the case to be subsequently more fully and effectually supported by a more strict and searching investigation;" and they go on to state that these and other matters combined tend very materially to the increase of crime, by the chance of escape, even where a prosecution does take place, in consequence of "the want of the case being properly got up against the prisoner, as well as the other chances which the ingenuity of his counsel at the trial may give him, unopposed, as is almost always the case at the sessions, by any counsel for the prosecution." Whether this passage presents a correct view or not of the duty of magistrates in preliminary investigations, it cannot be questioned
that it discloses very accurately what in reality does commonly take place, even in those counties where the magistrates have made no special rules as to the employment of an attorney.
The slightest reflection must convince any one that it is impossible that any case can be properly presented to a court or jury unless there be some one to conduct it, even if there be only evidence on the part of the prosecution, and still more so if there be witnesses for the defence. And if some person must be employed to conduct the case, it is essential to the regularity of the proceedings that it should be some one practically conversant with legal proceedings. It must, therefore, generally speaking, be the rule that counsel should conduct prosecutions. If there is no one to conduct them, the court is placed in a position in which no court ought ever to be placed. A judge or chairman has his own peculiar functions to discharge, and it is quite inconsistent with his position that he should have the additional duty of examining the witnesses for the prosecution; still more is it out of character that he should ever be placed in such a situation that he might feel it incumbent to put questions to the prisoner's witnesses, with a view to impeach their credit, and in order to prevent a fictitious defence from succeeding. If such objections were not, as as they clearly are, insuperable, neither a judge nor chairman can ever possess the information that is requisite to enable him to perform those duties which counsel usually discharge, as he can only know what is contained in the depositions, and can have no means of investigating the truth of any fact other than such as the depositions may afford. It is manifest, therefore, that counsel ought to be employed in every case.
If that be so, it follows as a necessary consequence that an attorney must be employed in every case also, as it is useless to employ counsel unless his instructions be such as to enable him to be really serviceable in the case. Now if the depositions are his only instructions, it is obvious that they will frequently afford a very inadequate means of knowledge. Very frequently they are insufficient for the purpose of conducting the case on the part of the prosecution, as they are silent as to facts most material to the case; and as they now only contain the evidence on the part of the prosecution, they can by no possibility afford counsel any means of knowing or meeting any defence that may be made by a prisoner. Again, in the course of a trial it often becomes essential to obtain information as to some fact, and if there be no attorney to apply to there is no means of ascertaining it at all. Lastly, there needs some one to follow up the investigation which has commenced before the magistrates, by obtaining additional evidence where necessary, more fully examining the witnesses, and seeing that all the witnesses are taken before the grand jury, and the case properly presented to the court: and if there be no attorney all this must necessarily be omitted. -From Mr. Greaves' Report
LAW OF VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
POSSESSION OF TITLE DEEDS BY PURCHASE OF
LARGEST LOT UNDER CONDITIONS OF SALE.
ONE of the conditions on a sale of some property in twelve lots was, that in all cases where two or more lots are held under the same title, the title deeds and documents now in the vendors' possession relating to
Law of Vendor and Purchaser.—Points in Equity Practice.-Law of Costs.
such lots, shall be delivered to the purchaser of the largest lot, or retained by the vendors, in case all the lots shall not be sold, and such purchaser or vendors shall enter into covenant with the purchasers of the other lots, at their expense, to produce such deeds and accounts when required.
The plaintiff purchased the largest lot in value and extent, but Messrs. Morland and Wilkinson purchased lots 3 to 12, which separately were less than the plaintiff's, but in the aggregate exceeded his purchase in extent and value.
On the question as to who was entitled to the custody of the title deeds, the Master of the Rolls made a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the custody, and directed the defendant to pay the costs of the suit, as it had been caused by his conduct. Scott v. Jackman, 21 Reav. 110.
POINTS IN EQUITY PRACTICE.
EVERY DAY IN TERM A MOTION DAY-PRO CONFESSO.
HELD by the Lords Justices that every day in Term is a motion day; and therefore that, under the 79th order of May 8, 1845, notice in the Gazette of a motion to be made on any specified day in Term to take a bill pro confesso is good, although the day in question may not be a day appointed for hearing motions. Chaffers v. Baker, 5 De G. MN., and G 482.
APPOINTMENT OF RELATION OF CESTUI QUE TRUST AS TRUSTEE.
On a petition for the appointment as one of new trustees of a person who was related to the cestuis que trustent, the Master of the Rolls said:"I cannot depart from the rule I have adopted of not appointing a near relative a trustee, unless I find it absolutely impossible to get some one unconnected with the family to undertake that office.
"I have always observed, that the worst breaches of trust are committed by relatives, who are unable to resist the importunities of their cestuis que trustent, when they are nearly related to them." Wilding v. Bolder, 21 Beav. 222.
LAW OF COSTS.
UNDER THE COUNTY COURTS' ACTS. On the trial of an action, the plaintiff proved his demand, amounting to £37 10s. 2d., but which was reduced by payments and a set-off to £1, for which a verdict was given for the plaintiff. The Master taxed the plaintiff's costs at £14 3s., but Coleridge, J., at Chambers, had ordered the taxation to be reviewed, whereupon this rule was obtained to rescind such order.
Jervis, C. J., said:-"We have considered this case, which was argued yesterday, and have come to the conclusion that the rule should be discharged. It was an application to rescind an order of my brother Coleridge directing a review of the taxation, the Master having allowed the plaintiff his costs, although he recovered only £4, and there was no certificate. The order for a review was resisted upon the ground that the amount claimed originally, £37 10s. 2d., had been reduced below £20 by a set-off. There
was a preliminary question raised before us, viz., whether the amount by which the verdict was reduced was to be dealt with as an advanced payment, or was strictly a set-off. But, independently of that, the more important question arose as to the effect of the recovery where the amount was reduced by a set-off, and not by payment. It was contended by Mr. Hawkins that, upon the true construction of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 11, the recovery was to be the criterion; and we are of that opinion. The 129th section of the first County Court Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, enacted that if any action should be commenced in a superior court for any cause (other than those provided for by the concurrent jurisdiction clause, s. 128) for which a plaint might have been entered in the county court, and a verdict should be found for the plaintiff for a less sum than £20, if the action is founded on contract, or less than £5, if it be founded on tort, the plaintiff should have judg ment to recover such sum only, and no costs. Under that section, the only way of depriving the plaintiff of costs was by a motion for leave to enter a suggestion on the roll. That being found to be attended with great inconvenience, the law was amended in that respect by the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61. the 11th section of which enacted "that if in any action commenced after the passing of that act in any of her Majesty's superior courts of record, in covenant, debt, detinue, or assumpsit, not being an action for breach of promise of marriage, the plaintiff shall recover a sum not exceeding £20, or if, in any action commenced after the passing of that act in any of her Majesty's superior courts of record, in trespass, trover, or case, not being an action for malicious prosecution, or for libel, or for slander, or for criminal conversation, or for seduction, the plaintiff shall have judgment to recover such sum only, and no costs, except in the cases thereinafter (in ss. 12 and 13) provided; and it shall not be necessary to enter any suggestion on the record to deprive such plaintiff of costs," &c. The 12th section provides that the judge at the trial may certify to entitle the plaintiff to costs, though he should recover less than the sums before-mentioned, if it appears to him that the cause of action is one for which a plaint could not have been entered in the county court, or that there was a sufficient reason for bringing the action in the superior court. And s. 13 provided that if the plaintiff' should make it appear to the satisfaction of the court or a judge that the action was brought for a cause in which concurrent jurisdiction was given to the superior courts by the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 128, or for which no plaint could have been entered in the county court, or that the cause was removed by certiorari, the court or judge might, by rule or order, direct that the plaintiff should recover Then came the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 54, the 4th section of which repealed the 13 and 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 13, and substituted for it the following provision, viz., "in any action in which the plaintiff shall not be entitled to recover his costs by reason of the provisions of the 11th section of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, whether there be a verdict in such action or not, if the plaintiff shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court in which such action was brought, or to the satisfaction of a judge at chambers, upon summonses, that such action was brought for a cause in which concurrent jurisdiction is given to the superior courts by the 128th section of the 9 & 19 Vict. c. 95, or for which no plaint could have been entered in any such county courts by certiorari, of that there was sufficient reason for bringing such ac