The Gazette 1927-30

JUNE, iffy

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

the same as was required for aAnal judgment motion under the previous rules. Considering that, up to the time of this decision, only what I might describe as bald affidavits of debt had been served with originating summonses, the matter became very serious, and accordingly a deputation from your Council waited on the President of the High Court, and laid the facts before him. The President, who received the deputation most courteously, fully appre– ciated the seriousness of the position that had arisen, and said he would communicate at once with the Chief Justice, with a view of having a meeting of the Rule-making Authority summoned for an early date. The meeting was called for the following week, and as your President I attended and handed in the draft of suggested new rules which had been approved by your Council. These Rules, with very slight alterations, were adopted by the Rule-making Authority, and have since been approved by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas, as required by the Act, so that now no affidavit has to be served with an originating summons. A simple affidavit of debt is sufficient to mark judgment in default of appearance, and a plenary affidavit verifying the cause of action is required only when the defendant has entered an appearance, and the plaintiff applies for judgment under Order XV. In other words, the practice in this respect is the same now as it was under the J udicature Acts. This defect in the machinery has thus been set right. The next defect in the judicial machine is a more serious one, and is of grave importance, not only to both branches of the legal pro– fession but to the public. I refer to the system of appeal from a Judgment or Order of the Circuit Court in Civil cases grounded on a stenographer's notes, as set up by S. 62 of the Act of 1924. In his speech, moving the adoption of the Report of your Council in November last, your late President (Dr. Quirke) spoke of this matter, and referred to the many com– munications your Council had received from the Sessional Bars and Solicitors throughout the country on the subject of these Appeals, and in his, usual clear and masterly way set out many. pf,.the objections to the system. The complaints growing louder and louder,

a deputation from your Council waited on the Minister for Justice in March last, and put before him the many grounds on which it was desired that this section of the Act should be repealed or amended. The Minister received the deputation most courteously, and gave an attentivejiearing to the members during a long interview. I will not weary you by stating the whole case put forward by your Council, as you are all familiar with the many objections to the new system, but will content myself with naming a few. In the first place, we pointed out that the initial hearing of the Civil Bill by the Circuit Court Judge now occupied far more time to enable the stenographer to take a note of the evidence ; that no shorthand writer, no matter how proficient in his art, could take a full and accurate note of all the evidence, particularly the cross-examinations of the witnesses ; that the Judges hearing the Appeal, not having the great advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses in the box, were not in a position to test the value of the evidence ; that the cost to the litigants was nearly doubled ; and, generally, that the system was slow, costly and unsatisfactory. Complaint was also made of the great delay in hearing the Appeals, but, as you are aware, four Commissioners have recently been appointed to clear off the arrears. The Minister in his reply stated it was a remarkable thing that not one of the signatories to the Report of the Judiciary Commission on which the Act of 1924 was framed had signified his disapproval of the new system. To my mind this fact carries no weight, because of the twelve Commis– sioners ten are now either Judges or hold official positions whose duty is to administer the law as they find it and not to criticise it. Of the remaining two, one is a past President of the Chamber of Commerce, and the other is Mr. P. J. Brady, a former President of this Society, who recently in the Seanad publicly stated that although he signed the Report, he was never in love with the system, and from his experience of its working he thoroughly disapproved of it. Another matter on which the Minister laid great stress was the manner in which he alleged the trial of Civil Bills was conducted in the late County Courts. He described it as " a run over the course," each side waiting