HC Deb 11 May 1836 vol 33 cc835-9

The House went into a Committee upon the Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Bill.

On Clause 2—New jurisdiction as to lands.

Sir R. Fergusson

objected, and stated that the greater part of Londonderry was held under the London company. One-third of the city stood on ground the yearly rent reserved for which did not exceed 10l.

Mr. Lynch

admitted, that inconvenience might arise in some cases, but not sufficient to counterbalance the good effects which he anticipated from the clause; and which would arise from giving jurisdiction to the assistant-barrister in cases of dispute between the lower classes, as to leasehold interest in land.

Mr. French

did not consider this clause sufficiently extensive. There were several cases unprovided for, such as "squatters," and persons holding possession, without ever having had a title. He would wish to know why the jurisdiction proposed to be given was limited to cases where the rent did not exceed 10l. By the 1st George 4th., chap. 41, the jurisdiction in cases of ejectment was extended to cases where the rent did not exceed 50l. Why not extend the jurisdiction in this, which seemed a similar case, to the like sum?

Mr. Lynch

stated, that this was an experiment, giving barristers the power of trying ejectments of this nature. He thought it right to limit it to a small sum at first, but if it worked well, he could see no objection to extend it as his hon. friend wished.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 8—Mode of proceeding in replevin cases,

Mr. French moved the insertion of a few words in the fourth line; he did not anticipate any objection to the introduction of them, as it was evident from the preceding clause, regulating the appointment of repleviners, that the object of the framers of this Act was to convenience the people as much as possible. The object of appointing a repleviner for each division seemed to be to have them within a reasonable distance of any tenant, and so to save him trouble. But this object would be defeated if he were compelled to travel first to the county town, to the clerk of the peace; he might have to travel a journey of forty miles, and back—in all, eighty or ninety miles, before he could have a replevin. The object of this amendment was, that the Civil Bill should be lodged with the repleviner of the district, when the distress was made, by whom it should be forwarded to the clerk of the peace.

Mr. O'Loghlen

objected to the Amendment, considering, that the business must be done by some one, and he thought it as well it should be done by the party, as by the repleviner.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 12, directing the Assistant Barrister to hear and determine such Civil Bills,

Mr. French

wished to call the attention of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to this clause, and to the three which immediately followed. It appeared to him there ought to be a decree against the obligors of the bond, at once, with stay of execution for a certain time, say ten days. Why, he would ask, after a full hearing, should the defendant, or person distraining, have to wait till the next Sessions, generally a period of three months, and then have to commence a fresh suit against the obligors of the bond; if they agreed to be answerable, why should they not be made so at once, without the trouble and expense of a new suit, in a case where, in fact, there was nothing new to litigate? The amount of debt and costs was decided by the first suit, the mere form of a decree against the obligors was all that was required, and this might and ought to be had in the first trial, with such stay of execution as might seem reasonable. The obligors should have leave to prove the goods distrained were not worth the rent and costs, and a decree should only go against them to the value so proved. He doubted very much the option of returning the goods ought to be given to them. Several months might intervene between the seizure and payment; in that time the value of the article distrained might be entirely changed. Goods of a perishable nature might be spoiled, and the value of five stock might, from neglect or otherwise, be reduced to half of what it was when the security was given.

Mr. O'Loghlen

admitted, the necessity of a second suit against the obligors ought to be obviated, and if the hon. Member would leave it to him, he would, on the Report, bring up a clause to that effect. He did not, however, concur with his hon. Friend in the expediency of striking out the 15th Clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17—Legacies and distributive shares payable out of assets of any deceased person (when such assets shall not exceed 200/.) recoverable by civil Bill.

Mr. Shaw

did not object to the principle of this clause, but he thought in practice that there would be considerable difficulty in ascertaining whether all just debts had been paid, and in putting the assets in a due course of administration. He was apprehensive that no machinery would be found sufficient for the purpose in the courts of the assistant-barristers.

Mr. Lynch

admitted, the want of machinery in the assistant-barristers' courts was the difficulty in this case. He had before endeavoured to remedy that, by introducing a machinery which he afterwards abandoned; but he understood, that such accounts were in some cases taken by the assistant-barristers. A gentleman had been sent from Ireland on behalf of the assistant-barristers, and he understood from him that this difficulty was not insuperable.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

admitted, that in some instances assistant-barristers did take such accounts, and he conceived on the whole, it would be an improvement in the administration of justice in Ireland, to give assistant-barristers jurisdiction where the assets did not exceed 200l. The House was, however, then exceedingly thin, and he thought it would be better to postpone the consideration of so important a subject until a future occasion, particularly as a gentleman, on the part of the assistant-barristers, had that day arrived in town, who could give some important information on the subject. The Committee were then entering upon an exceedingly important class of clauses. Neither side of the House were actuated by party views with respect to this measure, and the object was to make it as perfect as possible; he would, therefore, put it to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Lynch) whether he would, under the circumstances, press the consideration of those clauses in the then state of the House?

Mr. O'Brien

hoped his hon. Friend would not listen to the suggestion, but proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Lynch

said, he had had a conversation with the gentleman who had arrived on behalf of the assistant-barristers, and he did not understand him to object to this clause.—Clause agreed to.

On Clause 39, regulating hours of silting of Courts of Quarter-sessions,

Mr. Shaw

approved of the hour stated in the clause as an excellent general rule for the practice of the assistant-barristers, but he considered it should rather be directory than mandatory, otherwise the validity of the decrees might be affected to the great prejudice of the suitors; and with respect to Civil Bills, he had learned from some assistant-barristers, that great inconvenience might accrue to the poorer suitors of the court, if there was a peremptory rule, that no business should be proceeded upon after six o'clock. The convenience of the public, and not of the assistant-barrister, should be the consideration.

Mr. Lynch

said, that this clause had been much discussed before the Committee, and it was deemed advisable to retain it.

Mr. Ingham

thought, that no peremptory rule should be fixed; the adoption of such a course would be attended with great public inconvenience.

Mr. O'Loghlen

should not have the slightest objection to add a provision according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, to prevent the validity of the decree being affected, so as the suitor should not suffer, but he thought some rule ought to be laid down, regulating the hours of sitting. He knew cases in districts where the Insurrection Act was in force, in which great inconvenience arose from late sittings. The Insurrection Act compelled all persons residing in the district to be within doors from sun-set to sun-rise, and the assistant-barristers were in the habit of sitting so late as nine or ten o'clock at night.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

coincided with his right hon. Friend, (Mr. Shaw) in thinking that the public convenience ought to be consulted in preference to that of an individual. He thought it would be a hardship upon poor suitors who might live at a great distance, where, perhaps, there were few cases undisposed of; if, suppose, on a Saturday evening, sitting an hour longer would dispose of all the cases, they would have to go home thirty or forty miles, and return again on Monday morning. As a general rule, he approved of the hours prescribed, and in all criminal cases he thought no new case ought to be entered upon after six o'clock.—Clause agreed to.

The House resumed.—Committee to sit again.