Page images
PDF
EPUB

Law Fire Insurance Society.-Rivalry of the Superior and Inferior Courts.

any former year, allowing for the increased extent of business transacted; your Directors hope that this circumstance may have arisen from the caution used by them in their selection of risks, but, considering that the office has only had an experience of eight years, they dare not trust too confidently to the past as an index to the future.

An epitome is then given of the Balance Sheet, showing the position of the affairs of the Society, on the 31st December, 1853.

And the Report thus concludes:

At the Annual General Meeting of the Shareholders, held in the year 1851, your Directors declared (in addition to the interest upon the paid up capital of the Society, after the usual rate of 4 per cent.) a bonus of 2s. per share, amounting to 5,000l.; a similar sum was also appropriated as a bonus to the Shareholders in the year 1853, in addition to such ordinary interest; and your directors have the satisfaction of setting apart the same amount as a bonus for the present year.

Your Directors therefore declare an interest for the year ending at this meeting of 2s. upon each share, being 4 per cent. upon the paid-up capital of the Society, and also, in addition to such interest, a Bonus of 2s. upon each share.

This interest and bonus will be payable at the offices of the Society, on Monday the 10th day of July next, and on any subsequent day (except Friday), between the hours of 11 and 3 o'clock.

· 105

Westminster used to constitute a monopoly in former days, and would only sell at monopoly prices. Then it was that the County Courts were established, and these would soon have driven the old firms to the Bankruptcy Court, had not they in turn modified their scale of charges in order to keep their connexion together. This has been done so effectually that many good customers who had abandoned the Westminster establishment are now returning to it with a kind of penitent feeling, because, they say, they can get better justice at the old shop, and at a cheaper rate. Who knows to what length the generous strife may go? Time was when two rival hairdressers carried on their business in adjacent shops somewhere in the borough. Each of them in turn reduced his fee for tonsure by a penny sterling, until there was nothing left for reduction to act upon. Still the eager tradesman whose turn it was to take a decision did not hesitate for a moment, he placed a bill in his window informing the world that mankind might come to his shop and have their hair cut for nothing. The next day his antagonist trumped even this card, by offering to cut the hair of any customer who might honour his premises gratis, and to give him a glass of gin into the bargain.' May we not hope to see the day when the lawyers will adjudicate upon our little differences without the disagreeable necessity of making payment in any form, and perhaps with the further inducement that both plaintiff and defendant will be required to discuss a cool magnum of claret with the Court and

Your Directors have, in conclusion, the pleasing duty of repeating their acknowledg-counsel engaged on either side? ments for the great exertions made by the Shareholders generally to extend the business, and promote the interests of the Society, and they congratulate them on the present state and prospects of the Society: your Directors believe the Society to have been more successful than any other similar institution in so early a period of its existence, and they confidently anticipate that the continued efforts of the Shareholders will gradually place it among the leading Fire Insurance Companies of the Metropolis.

"To show that our hypothesis is not of a merely jocular character, we would call attention to the condition of the law business of the country as it has stood before and since the establishment of the County Courts, according to the figures quoted by Lord Brougham in the House of Lords. For some years before the establishment of the County Courts about 120,000 suits were brought annually in the Superior Courts. Since the County Courts have been established these numbers have been reduced to 80,000 annually, or by about one-third. Here comes the curious point. A short time back RIVALRY OF THE SUPERIOR AND portion of the establishment expenses of the an arrangement was made by which a great

INFERIOR COURTS.

THE Times has been amusing its readers with a description of the supposed rivalry between the "old shops" of Justice at Westminster Hall, and the new shops, in the form of County Courts, scattered over all parts of the kingdom. The Editor says,—

"It is a very fortunate thing for the country that the lawyers have at last been reduced to the condition of ordinary dealers in other commodities. There are two rival systems at work -the one being that of the Superior, the other of the County Courts, and the practitioners in either case are endeavouring to supply the public with justice of a marketable quality at the lowest possible figure. The great firms at

Superior Courts was thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, leaving only 50,000l. per annum to be borne in the shape of fees, whereas the fees or law taxes levied upon the suitors in the County Courts during the years 1852-53 amounted to more than 261,000l. yearly. Before these changes the business of the County Courts had been increasing so vastly that in 1852 there were 32,000 more suits brought in the County Courts than in 1851, whereas in 1853, after the fees at Westminster had been lowered, the increase in the County Courts on that year over 1852 only amounted to 10,000l. Let Lord Brougham's figures go quantum valeant. The fact that the County Court business had so rapidly increased in preceding years, may serve in some measure to explain

106 Rivalry of Superior and Inferior Courts.—Taxes on the Administration of Justice. why at a given time the ratio of increase began bring another into hot water can walk down to to show signs of falling off; still, substantially, the office, set the machine in motion for himthe fact is, that there has been a certain ten- self, tell his own story, waste the time of the dency to return to Westminster, and that this Court, and put an antagonist to the greatest tendency must in some considerable measure inconvenience, however iniquitous or absurd be referred to a reform in the scale of charges his cause of action may be. If the County there. Lord Brougham, however, should not Court Judges are to be thrown thus to the lose sight of the important fact that at West- mercy of the public they will become the mere minster the business, exclusive of Court fees, scapegoats of civilization. They will be daily is conducted on a far more expensive scale. In called upon to decide questions as to the age that arena the best legal gladiators are to be of Madame Vestris, or how niany steps there found, and he who would win bis cause must are to the top of the Monument, just as the secure the service of one or other among them, custom is of certain among our weekly conand pay accordingly. We would now call at- temporaries. Whatever, then, may be the tention to a very few figures, which will show ultimate decision as to any question of promore precisely the exact condition of the ques- portion, it would be at least but reasonable to tion as to the fees exacted in County Courts, take some security that a machine which may without comparison with any other tribunal. be in some measure worked at the public exThese fees-presuming the figures to be true- pense should not be wantonly set in motion are certainly excessive. There is good ground for any frivolous or unjust purpose. Still, if for raising the question, with the view of giving any of the instances quoted by Lord Brougham increased facilities to suitors in the County are correctly stated, and if they be fair, speciCourts. We must remain completely at vari- mens of taxation in County Courts, a man ance with Lord Brougham on many points, but must be prejudiced indeed who would deny, or on this he will meet with the hearty concur- even for any length of time postpone a remedy. rence of the public. The Lord Chancellor, whose duty it was to answer Lord Brougham, while repudiating the universal application of Bentham's principle, seems to have admitted that there were rational grounds for inquiry. This inquiry will be made. At the same time, it is obvious that the present moment is most unfortunately chosen for urging any proposition which has for its tendency an increase of the public burdens. Whatever our opinions upon this case may be, we must postpone legislation upon it until quieter times. Such is one of the penalties to be paid for war. It would scarcely be fair to conclude these remarks without admitting freely that Lord Brougham is fairly entitled to claim for himself the credit of having promoted by all means in his power, and at all times, useful reforms in the law, and in the method of its administration."

"In the course of the two years 1852-53 there were brought in the County Courts 479,000 suits annually for sums amounting to all but 1,500,000%,, of which 859,000l. was recovered either by judgments or sums paid into Court, in addition to sums paid merely upon service of the plaint. During these two years the fees levied upon the suitors amounted to more than 261,000l. yearly—that is, to 17 per cent. upon the sums sued for, or to 30 per cent. upon the sums recorded by judgments or paid into Court. The produce of these fees is no doubt employed with perfect propriety in the payment of the Judges and officers of the Courts, the expenses of Court-houses, &c. There is not, that we are aware of, any argument upon this point. The question simply is whether or no all the sum should be taken out of the pockets of the suitors, or whether it should be more or less thrown upon the ge

OF JUSTICE.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH.

WE deem it important to record in these columns the remarks of the Lord Chancellor in the debate of the 16th May, introduced by Lord Brougham, and which we noticed in our last two Numbers.

neral taxation of the country? Lord Brougham, TAXES ON THE ADMINISTRATION following the lead of Bentham, is all for regulating the principle that the losing suitor should pay costs. In all cases, according to his view, the machine which is to give the oracle should be set in motion at the public expense, inasmuch as it is to every man's interest that justice should be attainable at the cheapest rate, and in the speediest manner. We would venture to suggest that the present is not a case for the discussion or application of any great principle. It is clear enough that it is politic, as well as just, to throw so much expense upon the losing party as shall at least deter suitors from bringing or defending suits frivolously or vexatiously. The very system of the County Courts, and the class of cases upon which they are called upon to adjudicate, render such a protection matter of absolute necessity. There is no defence interposed between the Court and the suitor, and so little of technical form, that any man who wishes to

The Lord Chancellor agreed with his noble and learned friend in thinking that it was the first duty of every State to supply the means for the administration of justice, and that, as a general proposition, those means should be furnished, in the first instance at least, by the country at large, and not by the suitors. If he did not concur with his noble and learned friend in thinking that it would be expedient at the present moment to pass the resolutions he had laid upon the table, it was, in the first

Taxes on the Administration of Justice.

107

place, because this seemed a period peculiarly Courts amounted to about 50,000l. a year. He inopportune for any change which would make (the Lord Chancellor) thought they exceeded a great addition to the burdens of the country; that sum, but their amount was certainly and because, secondly, he thought that abstract very small in comparison with the fees levied resolutions of this kind, upon which their lord- in the County Courts. The amount of fees in ships were not prepared to act immediately, in the Court of Chancery was, however, very were in the highest degree inexpedient. As he considerable, the fees levied in that Court had before said, he concurred generally with during the last year having been nearly his noble and learned friend in the view he 100,000l., a sum which would probably be took as to the mode in which the funds for the exceeded during the present year. This subadministration of justice ought to be supplied, ject had escaped the attention of her Majesty's but there were many considerations which, in Government. But they had deemed it proper dealing with this question, could not be kept to wait for the report of the County Courts' out of sight. The persons upon whom the Commissioners, and they had also considered cost of administering justice ought eventually that the matter ought not to be dealt with to fall were those whose misconduct in violat- solely with reference to the County Courts. ing the rights of others had led to the necessity of litigation.

sity of litigation were the persons who, in his opinion, ought fairly to be called upon to contribute to the maintenance of the Courts. Now, in 99 cases out of 100-he might almost say in 999 cases out of 1,000-occurring in the County Courts, the necessity of the suit was occasioned merely by the wrong of one or the other party. It might be that a customer wrongfully withheld from an honest tradesman the bill he owed, or that a person wrongfully claimed that to which he was not entitled. It

It was their opinion that the whole subject should be investigated, and that a proper proIn the first instance, it was unquestionably portion of fees, so far as it could be ascertained, the duty of the Legislature to provide Courts should be cast upon the different Courts. In of Justice; but he considered that, upon the the Court of Chancery, as he had stated, fees strictest principle of right, the suitor who had were levied to the amount of nearly 100,000l. been in the wrong, and whose wrong had a year. He knew it might be said that those caused the necessity of litigation, should be fees were levied in a Court for rich suitors, bound to contribute-in the nature of a fine-while the County Court fees were imposed to the maintenance of the Court to which his upon poor suitors, but that argument, he coninjustice had rendered it necessary to appeal.sidered, was not at all founded on justice. The He could not, therefore, object, even in theory, suitors whose wrong had occasioned the necesto such a portion of the fees levied upon suitors as was levied upon the wrong-doing suitors against whom decisions were given. It seemed to him consistent with every principle of right, and with the ordinary notions and feelings of mankind, that such persons should be bound to contribute to the maintenance of the Courts to which they had recourse. To such an extent was this principle carried in France, that every criminal was mulcted in the costs of the suit against him, which were made part of the sentence. The State should supply the tri-was, therefore, consistent with the strictest bunal; but it was fitting that the suitor-either the defendant, who had wrongfully withheld that to which the plaintiff was entitled, or the plaintiff who had wrongfully demanded that to which he had no just claim-should be required to contribute to the maintenance of the judicial system. His noble and learned friend had mentioned the fact that, at the present moment an inquiry into this subject was being prosecuted by a commission, from whom a report might very soon be expected.

principle of right that a very large portion of the cost of maintaining Courts for the determination of these claims should be borne by the party whose wrongful act occasioned the suits. He knew this could not be done in all cases, because they might have to deal with insolvent parties.

In the Court of Chancery, however, in 99 cases out of 100, the suits arose from the uncertainty of the law. The questions of law that had to be decided in the Court of Chancery He thought it would probably appear that were very difficult, and he thought, therefore, the system of fees at present existing in the it was right that the Legislature, whose fault it County Courts was a system not only very was that the law was not clear, should contriobjectionable in its extent, but also with re-bute largely to the maintenance of that Court. gard to the mode in which the fees were levied He did not think that the 100,0001. contributed -the system having a tendency to saddle with by fees in the Court of Chancery should be fees those parties who were in the right instead compared with the 260,000l. a year levied by of those who were in the wrong. This was un-fees in the County Courts, without taking into doubtedly a subject that required great consi- consideration the difference between the classes deration, and certainly a grievance existed that of cases decided by these Courts. ought to be redressed. It must not be supposed, however, that complete justice could be done in this matter by merely directing their attention to the County Courts. Fees to a very large amount were levied also in the other Courts. His noble and learned friend had said that the fees levied in the Superior

The exact state of the case with regard to fees in the County Courts would doubtless be ascertained when the Commission presented its report, and it was the intention of her Majesty's Government, when that report was before them, to look into the whole subject, and to endeadeavour to devise some plan under which the

- 108

10.

received to the £603,346 602,098

Statistics of the County Courts.-Result of Trinity Term Examination. State might contribute its proportion, and the 8. The total amount of moneys suitors their fair proportion, to the maintenance credit of the suitors, was of such Courts. He agreed with his noble and And the amount paid out. learned friend, that if any inequality with regard to fees existed, it was most unjust that 9. such inequality should exist in the case of the County Courts, for he entirely concurred in the eulogium which the noble and learned lord had passed upon those Courts, and in the belief that the benefit they had conferred upon the community could not be exaggerated. The proceedings of the County Courts had been the means of suggesting, and would, he hoped, continue to be the means of suggesting improvements in the Superior Courts, and he trusted that the two systems might mutually act and re-act upon each other.

The number of causes tried with the assistance of a jury, is 863, in 444 of which the party requiring a jury obtained a verdict. The number of executions issued by the clerk of the Court against the goods of defendants, is 63,286.

STATISTICS OF THE COUNTY
COURTS.

11,

13.

12. The number of judgment summonses issued was 47,704, of which 24,589 were heard by the Court.

The number of warrants of commitment issued by the clerk of the Court was 12,399, under which 5,416 persons were actually taken to prison.

The number of appeals entered under the 13 & 14 Vict c. 61, from 1st January to 31st December, 1853, both inclusive, was 25, and 11

ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY RETURN OF were pending on 1st January, 1853; of which

BUSINESS.

From 1st January to 31st December, 1853.
Number of plaints entered:

Above 201., and not exceeding 50l.
Not exceeding 201.

12 were confirmed, 7 were reversed, 10 were dropped, and the other 7 remain undecided.

The number of plaints entered by consent of parties under the 13 & 14 Vict. c, 61, s. 17, 9,270 from 1st January to 31st December, 1853, both 475,676 inclusive, was 34, of which 23 were tried. The total amount received by the treasurers on account of the general fund for the same period, was

2. Number of plaints tried, or in which

ment was entered: Above 201., and not exceeding 50l. Not exceeding 201.

484,946
judg-

[ocr errors]

5,276

249,458

254,734

3. The number of days that the 60 Courts have
sat, is 8,615.1

4. The total amount of moneys for which plaints
were entered, is .
£1,410,958
5. The total amount of moneys for which judg-
ment has been obtained, exclusive of costs,
£707,551

is

And the amount of such costs, including expenses of witnesses, counsel, and attorneys, is

[ocr errors]

ments

And the payments

[ocr errors]

£39,402

[ocr errors]

41,020

RESULT OF THE TRINITY TERM
EXAMINATION.

THIS Examination took place as usual, on Tuesday last, the 6th June. The Master, Sir F. Dwarris, addressed the Candidates on the nature of their professional duties, remarking that the services of the lawyer were indispensable in every step of a man's life :-in his contract on entering a profession; the settlement 174,083 on his marriage; his purchase of or leasing a house; in forming a partnership; in making £881,634 6. The amount of moneys paid into Court, in his will. He called their attention to the digsatisfaction of debts sued for, without pro- | nity of the Profession on which they were enceeding to judgment, is . £107,854 tering, which would confer honour on all whose conduct was marked by integrity and a diligent discharge of their duties. After much kind advice and encouragement, he concluded by admonishing them not hastily to bring up their answers to the questions, but to consider well the points they involved.

[blocks in formation]

Notes of the Week.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor.-Rolls.

NOTES OF THE WEEK.

QUEEN'S BENCH SITTINGS.

THIS Court will, on Monday, the 19th day of June inst., and five following days, hold sittings, and will at such sittings proceed in disposing of the cases then remaining in the Special, Crown, and New Trial Papers, and will also, on Friday, the 30th day of June instant, hold a sitting, and will at such sitting only give judgment in cases previously argued.

EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS SITTINGS.

This Court will, on the 16th, 17th, and also on the 21st and seven following days of June inst. (Sundays excepted), hold sittings, and will at such sittings proceed in disposing of the business then pending in the New Trial and Special Papers.

LAW APPOINTMENTS.

109.

The Queen has been pleased to appoint William G. B. Shepstone, Esq., to be Civil division of Queenstown, Cape of Good Hope. Commissioner and Resident Magistrate for the

-From the London Gazette of 6th June.

Mr. James Eldridge, Solicitor, has been appointed Town Clerk of Newport, Isle of Wight, in the room of Mr. John Henry Hearn, resigned.

ADMISSION OF SOLICITORS.

The Master of the Rolls has appointed Thursday, the 15th of June instant, at the Rolls Court, Chancery Lane, at four in the afternoon, for swearing Solicitors.

Every person desirous of being sworn on the above day must leave his Common Law Admission or his Certificate of Practice for the current year at the Secretary's Office, Rolls Yard, Chancery Lane, on or before Wednesday, the 14th inst.

RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.

[blocks in formation]

ORDER FOR CANCELLING LETTERS PATENT. -DRAWING UP.-PRACTICE.

Held, that the order for the cancelling of letters patent of incorporation consequent upon judgment for the Crown on a sci, fa. is to be drawn up by the Clerk to the Petty Bag, and not by the Registrar.

THIS was an application for the direction of the Court in reference to whether the order consequent on the decision in the Exchequer Chamber on the sci. fa. to repeal the letters patent of incorporation of the above company, for the cancelling thereof, was to be drawn up by the Clerk to the Petty Bag or by the Registrar.

J. V. Prior in support.

The Lord Chancellor said, that the order should be drawn up by the Clerk of the Petty Bag.

Hill v. Tollett. June 3, 1854. CHANCERY OATHS' ACT.-POWER OF COMMISSIONERS AS TO PLACE OF ADMINISTERING OATH.

The oath to an affidavit in Chancery was administered by a Commissioner under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 78, at the AccountantGeneral's Office, and which was neither the place of residence or business of the deponent nor of the Commissioner: Held, that the affidavit must be filed.

In this case it appeared that Mr. Keith Barnes, one of the London Commissioners for administering Oaths in Chancery under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 78, had taken the affidavit in the Accountant-General's Office of the Court, and the question now raised was whether it could be received.

Follett applied for the direction of the Court on the officer refusing to file the affidavit.

Taylor for the suitors' fund.

The Lord Chancellor said, that he had alJustice Turner concurred, and Lord Justice ready expressed an opinion, in which Lord Bruce, although not exactly concurring, exaffidavits was not confined to the respective pressed no distinct dissent, that the taking places of business in the limited sense contended for, but meant within the distance of 10 miles. The affidavits taken in the manner in question must be received.

[blocks in formation]

It appeared in this suit that the husband of the plaintiff had become insolvent, and that his assignees had sold the reversionary interest in a sum of 450l. to which she was entitled in her own right, to the defendant for 35l. The property had now fallen into possession, and the plaintiff now asked for a settlement of the whole fund. It appeared she had three children who were nearly altogether dependent on her.

Follett and Nichols for the plaintiff; R. Palmer and Karslake for the defendant.

The Master of the Rolls said, that the reversion must be paid into Court and be invested,

« EelmineJätka »