law expenses. But at present, if the case is contested, which too often happens for the sake of staving off the evil day, or because the defender thinks the pursuer will find it difficult to prove her case in the face of his denial,—then after a delay of many months, perhaps years, one or other, or both of the parties, are saddled with a heavy load of law expenses. Thus, even if the pursuer gains her case, she is often not much the better of it, for the defendant having to pay to her agent, in the first place, £15 or £20 of expenses, is utterly unable to give her anything for his child. These heavy charges, moreover, not unfrequently induce him to leave the country entirely, in order to get rid both of them and of the burden of the child. This is not an unfrequent termination of a long litigation, even where both parties have, in the meantime, paid to their agents considerable sums to induce them to go on. Under the present law, such cases are brought in the Small Debt Court where the paternity is admitted, but the mother sues for past due aliment and inlying expenses, as well as when the paternity is denied, but the child is dead, and the whole claim is less than £12. Where the child is alive, and the alleged father denies it to be his, the action is thought incompetent in the Small Debt Court, on the ground that it really involves a question of £50 or £60 in value, though the sum immediately at issue may be very small. Almost the only difficulty that arises in such cases, now that the oath in supplement is superseded, is upon the construction of contradictory evidence. But this occurs in many other questions already within the small debt jurisdiction. Perhaps fewer cases would be contested if the defender knew that the remedy against him was more easy and speedy. Many cases are even now arranged between the parties in that Court, for the pursuer very often sounds the real intentions of the defender by first bringing her action there, and, only upon his determined denial, carrying it into the Ordinary Court. The extension of the small debt jurisdiction to £50 would bring most affiliation cases into that Court, provided the extension be not confined to claims falling under the Triennial Prescription Act. Where a higher aliment is demanded, parties might be left to try the issue in the more expensive Court. I don't think that too great facility in bringing such actions into Court is to be much dreaded. I have never known of a case being brought against a man without there having been some grounds for it, though the pursuer may have failed from the natural difficulty of the proof in such cases.

Another improvement in the same direction might be made for the benefit of smaller proprietors, namely, the extension of summary removals, under 1st and 2d Vict., cap. 119, sect. 8, to leases of houses and other heritable subjects for twelve months, and the putting of these on the same footing as other causes under the Small Debt Act. At present these are confined to such lettings under twelve months, though for rents up to £30. Now any sort of lease for so short a time is uncommon. Monthly lettings of small holdings sometimes occur, and have occasionally had the benefit of the Act; but, so far as this county is concerned, the Act has been used only for getting rid of workmen who have left their work, but have retained possession of houses belonging to the proprietors of the works. It would be a boon, I think, to extend it as I have suggested. I have known many cases where an obstinate yearly tenant, in a small tenement, has defied his landlord for months, and put him and the incoming tenant to great inconvenience, upon some plausible defence in the Ordinary Court in which the action for his removal had to be brought. Even under the summary form, as presently arranged, the removing does not cost a defeated party less than 30s. or 40s. Perhaps, if the action was brought more under the Small Debt Act, the expense would be greatly less. That jurisdiction might be made to apply where the rent is £25 and under, and the subjects are let for one year and under. Such a summons to remove might be held a good warning if brought forty days, or some short time, before the agreed on term of removal.

It would perhaps be well to allow the Sheriff from time to time to appoint other days than the Ordinary Court days for hearing and taking proof in adjourned cases. This might be of use for Circuit Court cases, if not so much for those in the Ordinary head Small Debt Court.

Appeals from the Small Debt Court should be admitted, I think, with some reserve and caution. I am perfectly aware of the advantage to the public of this right of appeal, and of the unspeakable relief to him who decides in the first instance, but in innumerable cases it is sure to add to the delay and expense. The richer man will always appeal while the poor man will not be able. It will be often done for delay alone, and such appeals will come before the Sheriff only four times a year. I would not object to such appeals in actions involving sums from £25 to £50, upon a case from the Sheriff-substitute, upon the facts or the law, or his notes on the matter, comprehending both. But for cases under £25 the judgment of the Sheriff-substitute or local Judge should, it is thought, suffice. The matter should take end there. The losing party may grumble for a time, but he will become reconciled at last, when he finds that no more of his time and money is required in pursuing or defending the case, and that his troubles and anxieties in the matter are over. Nor will he likely have suffered any injustice, for if a little time is taken for consideration before coming to a decision in the more intricate cases, that decision will seldom be far wrong, though pronounced by an inferior Judge.

RETIRING ALLOWANCE OF SHERIFF SUBSTITUTES.

(To the Editor of the Journal of Jurisprudence.)

SIR,-I wrote to you on a former occasion, as to the unsatisfactory footing on which, as it appeared to me, the retiring allowances to us Sheriff-Substitutes were placed by the Act 1 & 2 Victoria, cap. 119, 26-and requesting you to notice the matter in the Journal when a suitable opportunity should occur. Such an opportunity seems likely to arise from the large measure which the Lord Advocate is about to introduce for the extension of our Small Debt jurisdiction, and many alterations in our forms of proceeding, and should you concur in my views on the subject, I trust you will advocate them in such manner as you think best. Looking at the words of the statute "old age or permanent inability -to be proved to the satisfaction of the heads of Court and the Lord Advocate for the time being, they appear to me so indefinite that no proof could satisfactorily meet them, whereas if old age were defined. and that alone, or length of service alone, made the ground of our claim, irrespective of all questions as to health or ability, nothing could be easier. If the statute is to be rigidly interpreted, no man can get the allowance unless he is on death-bed, and if he will retire sooner he has no claim to it whatever. Now considering the reason for granting such allowances, namely, that we should abandon every other source of emolument, this would seem a very harsh result ;-not to mention the injury to the public service, by inducing men to hold on after their faculties were comparatively impaired. This view seems confirmed by the provision in the statutes for such allowances to the Judges of the Supreme Court both in England and Scotland by which they are entitled to claim their pensions, after fifteen years service and the same rule, viz., this length of service, is applied to all officers in the Civil Service-the only exception being the County Court Judges in England, to whom the same rule applies as to us, but they are neither bound to residence, nor are they debarred from other employment. Yours faithfully,

12th February, 1867.

The Month.

A SHERIFF SUBSTITUTE.

INSTALLATION OF LORD PRESIDENT INGLIS.-On Tuesday, 26th February, Lord Glencorse presented his commission as Lord Justice-General and Lord President of the Court of Session, and after taking the usual oaths, took his seat on the Bench as Lord President. His Lordship then said:-My Lords, having been promoted by the favour of our gracious Sovereign to the highest judicial office in

Scotland, I trust it will be agreeable to your Lordships, as I am sure it will be a relief and satisfaction to my own mind, that I should endeavour to express, however imperfectly, the deep feeling of responsibility with which I enter upon the performance of my new duties. The responsibility is indeed most grave and serious, for I am persuaded that no man can occupy the position of President of this Court, even for a short time, without exercising a large and important influence for good or evil on the administration of justice, on the progress and development of the law and the strength and consistency of our judicial system, and by a necessary consequence, upon the happiness and well-being of the people. When I call to mind my predecessors who have gone before me in this chair, and their eminent characters and services, and particularly the three distinguished individuals who within my own recollection, and during the period of my professional life, successively discharged its duties with so much dignity, ability, and public advantage, I own that I am oppressed by most serious and painful misgivings as to my own competency to follow worthily in their footsteps. Of our venerable friend who has so recently left us I can scarcely trust myself to speak. The loss which we have thus sustained in this Court I suspect we are hardly even yet able fully to appreciate; for I believe there was no man more qualified by high intellectual gifts, by the integrity of his moral nature, and by the force of his character, to become President of a Supreme Court; and none ever filled that office who devoted himself with greater assiduity to cultivate and apply those talents with which he was blessed, so as to render them most conducive to the public good. That he attained to great success in his judicial office I need hardly say, for I am addressing those who were present when he bade us farewell; and and I am sure none who witnessed that scene will readily forget it. If I might be permitted, on such an occasion as this, to intrude for one moment my private and personal feelings, I should desire to add that, having served under him and been associated with him during my whole professional career, I have been so long and constantly accustomed to resort to his wise counsels, and to lean with confidence on his steady and generous friendship, that his removal from among us affects me with all the pain of personal misfortune. Still, there is much consolation in reflecting on the circumstances which attended his resignation. His great public services have met with a suitable but not more than an adequate recognition and reward in the honours which her Majesty has been graciously pleased to bestow upon him; and we rejoice to think that the unabated vigour and energy of his great mind will still find full scope for employment in a field of labour in which we know that he is most eminently fitted to excel. Though he be no longer personally present among us, I trust that his spirit will long continue to animate and pervade our deliberations, and to encourage and support us in encountering our judicial labours; and I feel certain that his bright example will serve as a great incentive and guide to the members of the legal profession to follow the path of honourable ambition with rectitude and integrity. My Lords, whatever may be the ultimate fate or success of the performance of my judicial functions among you, I know that you will give me credit now for a sincere and earnest desire to prove myself not unworthy of the great trust which has been reposed in me; and I am well assured that I shall not look in vain for that hearty co-operation and generous support from all my colleagues, without which any exertions of mine would indeed be altogether in vain. To the bar of Scotland, to the learning and ability, and high honour of its individual members, and to the thorough organisation and independence of the body, I apprehend, must be ascribed a great portion of the credit that arises from the satisfactory administration of the law; and I feel perfect confidence-a confidence rested not only on the well-earned reputation and the great forensic power of the leaders of the Bar, but upon that promise of future excellence which we see daily exhibited among the junior members-I say, I feel a perfect confidence for these reasons, that we shall receive in future all that valuable aid which in times past, as far back at least as my recollection reaches, the Court have ever derived from the Bar. And now, my Lords, I have but one word to say in conclusion, but it is a

word expressive of somewhat mixed feelings. While I have acted for now upwards of eight years as President of the other Division of the Court, I have been necessarily thrown into daily converse and the most intimate and familiar relations of friendship with the Judges of that Division. I think I may venture to say for them, as well as for myself, that during the whole course of that period the cordiality of our intercourse was never marred by one untoward occurrence, and that we part now-if, indeed, a parting it can be called—with the most sincere and ever-growing sentiments of mutual respect and affection.

Business of the Court of Session.-An Act of Sederunt has been passed extending the Sittings of both Divisions of the Court till Saturday 30th March inclusive. The Lord President has also transferred thirty causes from the roll of the First Division to that of the Second Division; and in the Outer House five causes from Lord Barcaple to Lord Kinloch, and four from Lord Jerviswoode to Lord Ormidale. It was supposed, from the early date for which the Second Division Jury Trials were fixed, that that Division would hold no extra sittings this session. But the Lord Justice-Clerk and his colleagues have doubtless remonstrated against being relieved from their just share of the serious amount of arrears which still obstruct the rolls. We fear, however, that even ten days' work of both Divisions at this period will make little impression on the large mass of business which is waiting for the leisure of the judges. Before the late transference of causes (6th March) there were 100 causes in the Ordinary Roll of the First Division, and 20 in the Summar Roll, besides a few causes in the Second Division Roll; and from 15 to 20 reclaiming notes have since passed through the Single Bills in the two Divisions. The First Division is only now hearing cases in which reclaiming notes were lodged at midsummer 1866. Surely suitors might fairly expect with the existing judicial establishment that their cases should not have to wait more than a month or two for the review of the Inner House. Much has already been done to keep down arrears, and it is to be hoped that Lord Glencorse will inaugurate his career as Lord President by a vigorous effort to bring the Divisions as nearly as may be abreast of the Outer House. Why should not the Court sit next Summer Session from 1st May to 31st July; and then begin the Winter Session at 15th October? This would give great relief to many anxious litigants, and would probably remove the necessity of extra sittings for two or three Sessions to come.

Proofs under the Evidence Act 1866.-We now lay before our readers the following interesting and important statistics of the working of the new system of taking Proofs during the Session which is just finished. We also add a note of the number of cases in which Issues were adjusted or reported by the Lords Ordinary during the last two Winter Sessions:

Before LORD KINLOCH.-6 Proofs went on. Only one lasted more

than a day, and none of the others occupied a whole day. 12

cases set down for Proof were settled or delayed. loch rises with 14 Debates* on his ordinary Roll. Before LORD JERVISWOODE.-14 Proofs went on.

Lord Kin

Several of these

were very heavy: 1 lasted 3 days, 4 lasted 2 days each: the others a day or less. 7 cases set down for Proof were settled or delayed. Lord Jerviswoode rises with 16 Debates* on his Roll.

Before LORD ORMIDALE. -5 Proofs went on. One lasted 3 days, 2 two days each the others less than a day: 1 settled. Lord Ormidale has 10 Debates* on his Roll.

Before LORD BARCAPLE.-7 Proofs went on. All lasted less than a day, and most of them only two or three hours. 6 delayed or settled. Lord Barcaple has still 16 Debates* on his Roll. Before LORD MURE.-5 Proofs went on-2 of these lasted more than a day. Lord Mure also took the Proof in 1 case, on a remit from the Second Division; the evidence in that case occupied part of three days. Lord Mure has 4 Debates* on his Roll.

It should be stated that these last figures do not afford a fair comparison between the former system and the new one, because in several of the cases Issues had been ordered before the Evidence Act passed. Although we do not guarantee the exact accuracy of our figures, we have no doubt that they are substantially correct. It is perhaps unnecesssary to add, that they do not include the Proofs taken by the Lords Ordinary under the Conjugal Rights Act. These have been fewer and less important in the Session just closed than in any Session since the passing of that Act.

These figures prove beyond all question that the new system of trial has not obstructed the business of the Court, and has not imposed an inordinate amount of work on the Judges. On the contrary, with all the additional time occupied in taking 38 Proofs, no Judge has more than a fortnight's debates to begin the Summer Session with; and it would rather seem that if there had been no Proofs to be taken in the Outer House, several of the Bars would have been empty during the last month, except for half an hour at the calling of the Motion Roll. We believe that about one half of the cases tried by the Lords Ordinary in this way have gone or are going to the Inner House on Reclaiming Notes.

These debates in the case of each Lord Ordinary are exclusive of the debate on the Proofs taken under the new Act, all of which have been disposed of.