Imágenes de páginas

Questions similar to those we have suggested in the

NOTES OF THE WEEK. case of a creditor would arise on a dispute between the(language fails us in the attempt to reason about this bill)–sharers of profits themselves. We have pursued

The resignation of Mr. Justice Maule, and the apthis line of observation far enough. Let us now turn pointment of Mr. J. S. Willes as his successor, have to the operation of the 3rd section.

been the principal subjects of professional interest The 3rd section provides, that no person who lends during the past week. The learned judge who has money to any other person or partnership, on the terms retired after sixteen years of judicial service was one of receiving a portion of the profits of the business car

of the most eminent lawyers that ever adorned the ried on by such person

or partnership, shall be entitled Bench, and it is to be hoped that the public will not to recover the loan, unless he registers certain particu- altogether be deprived of his services, but that, like lars within ten days after it is made. His right to Sir John Patteson, he will continue to give them the recover the interest or profits is made the subject of a benefit of his great experience and learning in a less separate provision, namely, that the interest or profits arduous, though not less honourable, office than that shall not be recoverable if any material omission or mis- which he has resigned. With regard to his successor, statement is made in any of the prescribed particulars. the public and the profession have reason to be fully This seems to imply, either that a material omission in satisfied; although comparatively young, his reputation the particulars will not, or that an immaterial omission is already established as one of our soundest lawyers, will, destroy the right to recover the loan itself. Then as a man of great and general information, and as one there is no definition of "money." Does it include who has done good service in promoting useful reforms money's worth? If it include money's worth, does it in the law. apply to the sale of goods on credit?

And if not,

The following gentlemen have been made Queen's does it include cheques, bills of exchange, stock, shares, Counsel :-C. S. Whitmore, Esq., (Oxford Circuit); &c.? But we are concerned rather with the general w.

Overend, Esq., P. A. Pickering, Esq., and James scope than with the details of the provision. No one P. Wilde, Esq., (Northern Circuit); and W. Bovill, may lend money on the terms of sharing in profits, Esq., (Home Circuit). without publishing the particulars of the loan to the C. Temple, Esq., Q.C., succeeds J. W. Wing, Esq., world! A partner who brings in “money" (what- as County Court Judge of Northamptonshire. ever that word may include) forfeits all right to it The Queen has been pleased to grant to Travers unless he registers the loan within ten days. Why? | Twiss, D.C.L., the office of Professor of Civil Law in We turn to the words of the advocates of limited liabi- the University of Oxford, in the room of Dr. Joseph lity for the reply, and we find, among those of the Phillimore, deceased. most eminent among them, the following passages in

We regret to announce the death of John Venn Prior, praise of non-interference with private dealings:“ If ever there was a rule established by reason, au

Esq., of the Chancery Bar, who expired last week in thority, and experience, it is that the interest of a com. Although he had only attained the age of forty-three,

consequence of injuries caused by a fall from a horse. munity is best consulted by leaving to its members, as he had long enjoyed a very extensive professional prac. far as possible, the unrestrained and unfettered exercise tice, and he was deservedly considered one of the leadof their own talents and industry.”, (Mr. Bramwell, ing members of the outer Bar. He was as much Appendix to Mercantile Commission Report, p. 23). esteemed for his kind heart and amiable disposition as It is, above all, with reference to the improvement he was respected and admired for those higher

mental and elevation of the working classes that complete free endowments which had raised him to the position which dom in the conditions of partnership is indispensable.” he occupied. (Mr. John S. Mill, Political Economy, vol. 2, p. 468). “ The general principle of the advisability of allowing affirmed the judgments of the Court of Exchequer in

The Court of Exchequer Chamber (June 30) have perfect freedom in the making of contracts between man and man, only guarding against wilful deception." Watts v. Rees, (& Exch. 696), deciding that in an (Mr. K. D. Hodgson, Appendix to Mercantile Law action by an administrator for a debt due to him as Report, p. 37).

such, the defendant cannot plead a set-off of money due to leave people to act for themselves, and not to restrict the sale of a certain number of tons of iron by the ton 4 The received principle in commercial legislation is to him from the intestate in his lifetime; and in Giles

v. Jones, (10 Exch. 119), deciding that a contract for competition. The burthen of proof lies on those who introduce an exception to this principle in favour of long weight” is valid, and not rendered illegal by the large capitalists, and maintain that the law should in- | 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 63, or the 5 Geo. 4, c. 74. terfere by prohibitive enactments on behalf of those best able to take care of themselves.” (Mr. Robert Lowe, Id., p. 84). And so forth.

FIRST REPORT OF TAE COUNTY COURTS The alterations made in the Limited Liability Bill

COMMISSION. are in matters of detail, and do not call for special

(Continued from p. 276). comment. We have already discussed the scheme of that bill. We said, when these bills were first promised by the

PROCEDURE-(Continued). Government, that the bursting of the limited liability

Judgment Summons. bubble was at hand; that no competent draftsman Judgment Summonses to be issued in the Home or Focould make the attempt to embody in law any scheme reign District, at Discretion of Judge.]-At present a of limited liability that would satisfy the advocates of judgment summons must issue in the district within the measure, without perceiving that the thing was which a judgment debtor is resident, although the judgimpracticable, and declining the task; and that

when ment may not have been pronounced in that district. at length a draftsman had been found incompetent or This appears to be a hardship upon the successful party; reckless enough to do the job, his handiwork would but, on the other hand, the power to bring the defendcontain a compendious and conclusive demonstration of ant from one part of the kingdom to the other to anthe inherent absurdity of his instructions. The re- swer his creditor might be used vexatiously. peated delays in the production of the bills, and the We therefore recommend, that where the defendant bills now that we have them, justify our anticipations. resides out of the district in which the judgment was

obtained, it shall be competent for the judgment cre24


ditor, by leave of the judge, if he shall think fit to Rules made by Committee of County Court Judges, grant such leave, to summon the judgment debtor to which are not strictly applicable to increased Jurisdicthe court in which the judgment was obtained. tion.)-With regard to the body of rules already men

Certificate under Bankrupt, Insolvent, or Protection tioned, (see ante, p. 215), which was framed by a comAct to bar a Judgment Summons.]—By law, a certificate mittee of county court judges, and supervised by a chief under the Bankrupt Laws, a discharge under the Insol-justice and two other judges of the superior courts, vent Act, or a protection under the Protection Acts, under the authority of the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 101, s. 12, does not relieve any one from a commitment upon á it appears to us that they have been useful, and bave judgment in the county court.

tended to secure uniformity in the practice of the . We are of opinion, that as such proceedings would county courts. operate as a bar to proceedings in respect of all other Since the above rules were framed, the jurisdiction of debts, it is only just they should have a similar effect the county.courts has been extended to a variety of on a judgment in the county court.

matters which are not specifically provided for by the

practice; and therefore, when it is sought to apply any Prisons.

practice with reference to those matters, it can be at With reference to the gaol to which defaulters may present only by analogy. This, in many instances, is be committed, we think some alteration in the law may found to be inconvenient. be beneficially made.

Additional Rules recommended.]—We recommend, By the present law the defaulter must be committed therefore, that additional rules should be framed, which to the county gaol, or to some other place of confine- shall be specifically applicable to the matters of extended ment sanctioned for that purpose by the Secretary of jurisdiction, and that facilities of procedure, similar to State. It sometimes occurs that the county gaol, or those existing in the superior courts, should be introthat authorised by the Secretary of State, is much far- duced into the county court. ther from the court than the gaol belonging to an ad- The power of making rules has been vested in a comjoining county. Thus, Horsemonger-lane Gaol, which mittee of county court judges appointed by the Chanis in the county of Surrey, is but a short distance from cellor, in pursuance of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 54, s. 1. the County Court of Kent at Greenwich, while the

Continuance of Powers of Committee recommended for county gaol, which is at Maidstone, is more than thirty that Purpose.]—We think it desirable that the powers miles distant. Considerable expense and inconvenience of that committee should be continued, subject to the are caused by conveying the defaulter so great a distance. same supervision as already provided' by law. The

Defaulter should be sent to Gaol nearest Court. ]-We effect of this will be to prevent in a great degree the recommend, therefore, that he should be committed to differences of practice likely to arise in 500 co-ordinate the gaol nearest to the court, whether it be situated in courts, and to secure as far as possible conformity the county in which the court is held, or in a neigh- between the practice of those courts and that of the bouring county, but that in the latter case the prisoner superior tribunals. should be supported at the expense of the county with- No additional charge will be brought upon the rein which the court is held.

venue by the continuance of the powers of the comJudgment by Default.

mittee, as the judges of whom it consists act without

remuneration. At present (as appears at p. 216) the practice of judg

Further Scale of Fees recommended.]-We think that ment by default, properly so called, does not exist in the county court; but in the event of the defendant not ordinary jurisdiction of the court for the recovery of

a scale of fees applicable to the matters not within the appearing, on proof of proper service of the process, the pecuniary demands should be established, in order that cause is tried as undefended. The objection to this all persons availing themselves of the tribunal may practice is, that it compels the plaintiff to prove his contribute proportionately to its support, so long as it case at the hearing, instead of taking his judgment for is not maintained at the public expense. the whole amount claimed, as in an action for the recovery of a debt in the superior court. This is, in a

FEES. few instances, productive of some inconvenience to

We next proceed to consider the subject of fees. plaintiffs.

We will inquire, first, whether the amount raised by Not desirable in Proceedings for Claims not exceeding fees paid in the county courts can be levied in a manner 201.1-But with respect to claims in amounts not ex- less burthensome to the suitors; and, secondly, whether ceeding 201., we do not think any ultimate advantage that amount can be properly reduced. would be obtained by interfering with the present prac


may be levied in a less burthensome Manner.}tice.

1.-We think that the amount of the fees now levied Desirable in larger Amounts, and Parties should be in the county courts may be raised in a manner less permitted to serve Summons themselves. ]-With regard to burthensome to the suitors. sums above 201., where the claim is founded on con- Before stating the alterations we propose with refetract, as the defendants are of the same class as those rence to fees, it is desirable to give a short statement of sued in the superior courts, and as that jurisdiction is the origin of the present scale, embraced in the first and concurrent with that of the superior courts, we think second classes above mentioned. (See ante, p. 260). that the practice of judgment by default might be beDeficially introduced, provided that the service of the s. 37, it was provided, that certain fees, mentioned in

Origin of present Scale. ]—By the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, process be personal, and proper notice of the conse- Schedule (D.) to that act, shoul

for the benequences of not appearing be given in the summons. fit of the judges, clerks, and high bailiffs, irrespective of

In these cases we think that the plaintiffs should be the general fund fee, which was established by sect. 52 permitted to serve the summons, without the interven- of the same act, and is applicable to different purposes. tion of the bailiff. Conclusion.

By sect. 37, a power was reserved to one of her Ma

jesty's Principal Secretaries of State, with the consent Proceedings convenient.]—In conclusion, we may ob- of the Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, to alter, serve that the proceedings and practice in the county but not to increase, the fees mentioned in the schedule court appear to us to be convenient for the purpose of to the act. A similar power was contained in sect. 62, exercising the jurisdiction with which it is invested, with reference to the general fund fee.. (See ante, as they are simple, prompt, and inexpensive.

p. 261). More extensive powers of altering the fees


–It will be observed that in the above

were afterwards conferred on the same authorities by general fund, the fee of 1s. in the pound on claims exa the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 101, s. 6.

ceeding 40s. was reduced to 8d. The exemption of Complaints of former Scale.)-Soon after the establish- sums not exceeding 208., and the fee of 6d. in the pound ment of the courts, many complaints were made by the on sums not exceeding 40s., were left as by law prosuitors, both of the scale mentioned in the schedule, vided. and of the contribution to the general fund. The prin- Scale made less vague. ]-The second objection, founded cipal objections to the then existing scale were on the vague language of Schedule (D.), was removed,

First, that the amount of fees, including the first and by employing the language in which the present scalé second classes, was excessive:

is expressed. From the inquiries we have been enabled Secondly, that the language of the schedule was so to make, we have not discovered any reason for supvague that the officers were enabled to take more fees posing that the intentions of the framers of the scale than the Legislature intended :

have not been fulfilled, as it does not appear that any Thirdly, that as the amounts in respect of which the other fees than those strictly sanctioned by the scale fees were to be taken rose only by four steps, from 1l. have been taken. to 20l., the suitor who claimed 21. 1s. was compelled to pay as much as he who claimed 5l., and the

suitor who third objection, as to the sudden rises in the scale with

Progressive Increase of Fees; not beyond 201.] The claimed 101. 18. was compelled to pay as much as he reference to the amounts of claims, was net by substi, who claimed 201.

tuting a scale in which the amounts of the suitors' Reference to five County Court Judges.] - In the year respective claims were treated as the basis for calcu. 1850 a Secretary of State and the Lords Commissioners of lating the fee according to an arithmetical progression, the Treasury, in consequence of these complaints, deter- increasing by 11. from the sum of 1l. to 202. inclusive. mined to exercise the powers with which they were invested under the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 101, s. 6, and the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 96, s. 52, to alter the amount of fees taken in scale the progression stops at 201. If it continued the county courts; and the committee of county court beyond 201., to claims as high as 501., the fees would judges appointed by the Chancellor, in pursuance of have been so great as probably to exclude that class of the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 101, s. 12, were requested to con

business from the court, and so far prevent the revenue sider the matter, and to frame a scale of fees in con

from recovering from the loss which the diminution of formity with their views on the principle, that, having

fees had caused. regard to the average amount of the business in the Principles of Scale.)– The principles of the above courts, the fees, including the general fund fee, should scale, independent of the reduction of amounts, appear produce a sufficient revenue to support the whole of to be, that as the suitors were to be compelled to sup, the establishment and its incidents, with the exception port the

court by paying for the use of it, they should of the salaries of the treasurers, which were by sect. 23 pay in proportion to that use; and as the court was of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, expressly charged upon the peculiarly the poor man's court, the poorer suitors Consolidated Fund.

should pay less than the richer ones. No interference with the third, fourth, or fifth class Principle correct, but Alterations in detail necessary.] of fees (ante, p. 261) was suggested to the committee, -The answers to the inquiries we have made on this and the law with respect to them remains unaltered. subject satisfy us, that if the courts are to be rendered

Suitors relieved to the Extent of One-seventh of the self-supporting, this scale is in principle correct; although Annual Redenue. ]-As to the first objection, the com- certain fees, which are hereafter referred to, have been mittee proposed that

the suitors should be relieved to shewn by more extended experience to be unnecessarily the extent of one-seventh of the total amount of the burthensome to the suitor, revenue produced by the fees. It was suggested, that, Fees may be levied in a less burthensome Manner.]by analogy to other taxes, a diminution in the amount we will now point out how the scale in force

, sup; of the fees would produce a corresponding increase posing the present amount of revenue to be required of business, and consequent increase of revenue, and from the courts, may be rendered less burthensome to therefore that no permanent loss would result from the the suitors. proposed reduction. The Government consented to undertake the risk of the non-productiveness of the Fee of additional ld. in the Pound.] –One

of the most

Mileage on Service and Execution exchanged for fixed court, and accordingly the committee were requested to burthensome fees which a suitor is called upon to pay frame a scale on the principle of such a reduction. The is the mileage fee to the bailiff in respect of serving and scale now in force was accordingly made, and came into executing the process of the court. As this fee is paid full operation at the beginning of the year 1851.

Deficiency supplied. The anticipations of the com- velling to perforın his duty, it is equally applicable to mittee were fulfilled. The revenue of 1850 was 252,0001, the lowest and the

highest amount of claim. Such a Assuming that the same amount of business continued fee, so far as the hailiff is concerned,

is just; but so far in the courts, the revenue of 1851, after the diminu- as the suitor is affected, is unjust. 'It compels a plaintion of one-seventh, or 36,0001., would have fallen to tiff to pay more or less for the service of his process

, 216,0001. By the returns of the year 1851, however, it according to the accidental circumstance of the distance appears that ihe total revenue of that year was 272,0001. which his debtor resides from the court. The principle This increased productiveness cannot be attributed en- of local jurisdiction is, that in each district, so far as tirely to the principle suggested by the committee, as possible

, every suitor should have his remedy brought produced by business resulting from the extended juris- though desirable, it is impossible completely to attain


to his own home. This is an object, however, which, diction over claims not exceeding 501., which in the but we think that a greater approximation

to its attaine year 1851 came into force. Still

, however, the remain- ment may be made than is effected by the present scale ing sum of 20,0001., beyond the anticipated 216,0001., of fees. was fairly attributable to the above-mentioned prin

We recommend, that in all cases of service or endciple; and in the following year the revenue continued cution of process at a distance from the court the same to increase.

fee should be paid, whatever that distance may be. General Fund Fee diminished.]—In the formation of This fee should be of such an amount as that, having the scale the committee abolished some fees, and re- regard to the average number of services and execuduced the amount of others; and with regard to the tions, a total equal to that at present raised should be

secured. The high bailiff would then keep an account, fees only in proportion to the amount of the rent or in conformity with the mode of calculating distances value for that term should be taken, such value to be Dow existing in the court, of the miles travelled, and determined, if necessary, by the clerk. at the audit the treasurer should

pay over to him a Replevin.1 --The fee payable on proceedings in rem proportionate sum. No danger of fraud upon the trea- plevin we think should also be altered. At present it surer would exist, because the books of the court, dis

is regulated by the amount distrained for; whereas, from closing the place of the defendant's residence, and the the nature of replevin itself, which seeks to recover distance-book of the court, shewing the number of miles things distrained, the value of the things so distrained to that residence, would afford a complete check. By ought, on the principle of poundage, to regulate the this means the burthen would be equally divided among amount of fees payable. all the suitors of the court, the bailiff would be com

Fee to be calculated by Value of Goods.]—We recompensated for his extra labour, and the principle of local mend, therefore, that the fee in replevin should he administration of justice more completely enforced.

payFrom the calculations we have made, it appears, that such value to be ascertained and determined, if neces

able in proportion to the value of the goods distrained, in lieu of the mileage fee, an additional Id. in the pound on the sum claimed would produce the required sary, by the clerk. This and the last-mentioned fee amount. This will be little more than a nominal in- tioned in the scale with reference to 201.

we propose should be subject to the restriction mencrease of fee to suitors where the defendant resides

Jurisdiction by Consent.]-In cases of jurisdiction by near the court, but will be a most important relief of the burthen now imposed in other cases.

consent, under sect. 17 of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, the

fees are at present calculated on the sum of 501. Mileage in case of Prisoners, exchanged for fixed Fee of ls. in the Pound.)-Another fee to be found in the claims, where the parties may, by consent, give juris

Fees to be calculated on 201. only.]-We think that in existing scale is that of conveying a defaulting party diction to the county court, under the above section, to prison, where he has been committed under the penal the fees should not be calculated upon a greater amount clauses of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95. The remarks which than that of 201. The number of cases under the conwe have made with reference to the mileage fee in the sent clause tried in the county courts has been excase of process are equally applicable to this fee. We propose, on the same principle, that one fee ceedingly small

, and therefore the diminution of revenue should be substituted for the mileage fee in such cases, be almost nominal, and not sufficient, therefore, to jus

in consequence of lessening the fees in question must however distant the gaol may be from the court. The calculations we have made lead us to the conclu should not be calculated on a greater amount than 201.

tify an exception to the general rule, that the fees sion, that a fee of 1s. in the pound on the sum for which the warrant issues would produce the required amount.

Appraisement Fee to be continued, but Appraisement This alteration would have an effect similar to that conducted differently.]—The fees of the third class are produced by the proposed change in the service fee.

those payable in respect of appraisements on execuIt will be seen, that in hereafter considering how far tions under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 96. Where an appraisethe amount produced by the present fees should be ment takes place on an execution, the appraiser is reduced, we propose to abolish all mileage fees, and to

entitled to 6d. in the pound on the value of the goods remunerate the bailiff

, in respect of the distance tra- for the appraisement of them, besides the stamp duty; velled by him in the performance of his duties, out of and in respect of advertisements, catalogues, sale and the produce of the fees proposed to be retained.

commission, and delivery of goods, 1s. in the pound on We have already made some observations and sug- the net produce of the sale. A difference of opinion gestions as to the more convenient gaols, with reference exists between some of the persons whom we have conto distance, to which defaulters should be committed. sulted as to the propriety of continuing this fee: some Possession Fee to be calculated on the Value of the others that it is a useful and necessary check on the

are of opinion that appraisement is a useless form ; Goods seized.] – The fee for keeping possession of goods proceedings of the bailiff in enforcing executions. taken in execution until the time of sale we think also

Our judgment is in favour of the latter opinion; requires modification. It will be observed that the but we think that the appraisement ought to be renpoundage is by the present scale calculated on the dered more efficient, by requiring the appraiser to affix amount for which the execution issues.

a specific price to the different articles to be sold, inWe think that the fee for possession ought to be cal-stead of adopting the present mode, which is in general culated only on the value of the goods actually seized, to put one total amount as the value of the whole probut not exceeding the amount mentioned in the war

perty to be sold. By the mode which we propose the rant, such value to be ascertained and determined, if practice of selling goods-at a sacrifice would be checked, necessary, by the clerk. This is more consistent with and friends or relatives might be willing to purchase, the nature of a fee for possession having relation to for the benefit of the defendant or his family, certain value. In many instances that which is taken into articles which are now involved in one common valuapossession is of less value than the amount on which tion. No difficulty would arise in compelling the perthe fee is calculated. In such cases, whether the loss

sons who act as appraisers to perform their duty in the fall upon the plaintiff or the defendant, injustice is the

way suggested, as by law those who act in that charesult. In the majority of instances, however, the loss racter are appointed by the high bailiff, with the written falls upon the plaintiff, as the fees are å prior charge sanction of the judge. upon the goods seized, and consequently the fruits of the execut are less capable of satisfying the plain- of fees, which are receivable by the bailiff in respect

Distresses. ]-Next, with respect to the fourth class tiff's demand.

of distresses made after notice of rent due, when exe· Recovery of Tenements. ]—The fee on proceedings for cutions are levied. By adopting the provisions of the the recovery of tenements we think also requires modi- 57 Geo. 3, c. 93, which now regulate those fees, injustice fication. At present it is paid upon the annual rent or is done to the tenant where a small amount of rent is value of the tenement sought to be recovered.

distrained for, and to the bailiff where a large amount Fee to be regulated by Term' of Letting.]-We think is claimed. that the fee should be regulated by the rent or value Fees to be calculated as on Executions.]–We think for the term of demise, whatever that may be, not ex

that the fees on distresses would be more properly calceeding one year. Thus, if the premises are demised culated on the same scale as in executions. By adoptfor a week, month, or other period less than a year, I ing the principle applied in executions, the fee being

[ocr errors]

proportionate to the amount, the objections we have Sixthly, to abolish the fees on issuing stated would be obviated.

a judgment summons, which now Alterations produce Increase of Revenue. ]-From the produce about

4,50000 inquiries we have made, we are led to believe that Fees on the hearing of the same

4,50000 the alterations we have suggested in the existing fees Fees on new trials

200 0 0 would be productive of an increase of the revenue pro- Fees on special defences

500 0 0 duced by the courts.

Fees on adjournments, which now pro

duce about II.-Whether the amount of fees can properly be Fees on subpænas

1,200 0 0

2,200 0 0 reduced.

Fees on applications for leave to sue County Court should not be entirely self-supporting, but out of the district

2,000 0 0 Fees suficient to pay Clerks and High Bailiffs should be Fees to the high bailiff for issuing taken.)-We now proceed to consider a question which warrant to the clerk of another is preliminary, but essential to this branch of the in


700 0 0 quiry-that is, whether the county courts should be Seventhly, we further recommend that self-supporting. We are of opinion that they should the summons and service fees, togenot. To compel the suitors to pay fees sufficient to ther amounting to 8d. in the pound, support the establishment appears to us unjust in prin- should be reduced to 6d.; and the ciple, as that which is for the benefit of the public hearing and service of order fees, toshould be supported by the public; but we fear that

gether amounting to 28. 3d. in the at present financial reasons will render it impracticable pound, should be reduced to 2s. This to reduce the fees in strict conformity with the prin- will have the effect of diminishing ciples we have enunciated. We think, therefore, that the produce of these fees by about 21,000 0 0 the suitors should pay an amount of contribution suf. ficient to remunerate the clerks and high bailiffs of the

£124,80000 court, and that all other expenses of the establishment, such as judges' salaries, buildings, stationery, and other Proposed Scale relieves Suitors to Extent of about Onematters, should be borne by the public revenue. half of present Revenue.]—The total of the sums pro

Proposed Scale adopts Progression of existing one, and duced annually by the fees which we propose to disabolishes or modifies certain Fees.]—We have prepared continue or reduce is rather less than one-half of the a scale relating to the first and second class of fees, present annual amount (253,5181.) levied on suitors. which, assuming the present amount of business of But not interfere with Bailiffs' and Appraisers' Fees.] the courts to continue, will produce a sum equal to - With the third and fourth classes of fees, which are the present amount of remuneration received by the received by the bailiffs and appraisers, we do not proofficers we have mentioned.

pose to interfere, except by the alterations already In the scale we propose, the general principle of the suggested. existing scale, so far as the gradual increase in proportion to the amount of demand is concerned, is adopted. The fees in insolvency and protection cases are of a

Insolvency and Protection Fees to remain as they are.] The fees which we propose to abolish or modify are special and occasional nature, and therefore cannot conas follows:

veniently be made part of a general scheme of fees of First, to abolish the general fund fee,

court. Besides, the duties performed by the officers are which will have the effect of re

in many respects of a nature different from those de lieving the suitors to the extent of . £37,000 0 0 the jurisdiction in insolvency and protection cases, it

volving on them in other matters. When we consider Secondly, to modify the hearing fee, where the parties consent to a judg

may probably be found desirable to modify the present ment. At present the fee payable

scale, and to define more strictly the fees to be taken, on a judgment to which the defend

The payment of 5s. to the jury we propose skould

continue. ant consents is the same in amount as that payable on a judgment where

With the above-suggested modifications and dimithe claim has been disputed and the

nutions, the following will be the proposed cause tried. We propose to reduce

TABLE OF Fees to be taken in the County Courts estathat fee from 2s. 3d. in the pound,

blished by the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95. the fee now paid, to 18. in the pound

For every plaint, 6d. in the pound on the amount of on the amount of the claim." This

the demand. would relieve such suitors to the

Notice.—No other fee whatever is to be taken on amount of about

18,000 0 0 Thirdly, to abolish the fees on pay

the entry of a plaint. ment of money into and out of court,

Judgments by consent under the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, and on notice of payment into court,

88. 8, 9, and judgments by default, ls. in the pound

on the amount of the demand. now producing the sum of about 14,000 0 0 For every hearing, 28. in the pound on the amount of Fourthly, to discontinue the bailiff's

the demand. mileage fee on serving and executing process. This fee produces about... 15,000 0 0

Notice. No other fee whatever is to be taken for Fifthly, to discontinue the bailiff's

the hearing or trial of a cause. mileage fee on conveying defaulting

For issuing any warrant against the body or goods, parties to prison. That fee now pro

18. 6d. in the pound on the amount for which such duces about

4,000 0 0 warrant issues. The bailiff, we propose, should

For application for new trial, or to set aside proceed. be paid, in proportion to the dis

ings, 6d. in the pound on the amount of the demand. tance travelled by him in serving

Notice.—No other fees than the above to be taken or executing process, or conveying

on any account whatever. No increase of fees committed parties, out of the fund

shall be made by reason of there being more which the remaining fees produce,

than one plaintiff or defendant. in the manner already suggested.

(To be continued).



« AnteriorContinuar »