11 / 142
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