SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 16 June 1853)

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he wished to ask whether the course of pleading might not be very much more simplified than by the process provided by this clause?

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
said, that that very question had been fully considered before the Select Committee, and the result was, that the clause as it now stood had met with their unanimous approbation.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he had been unable to be present on the Committee. He did not see why the pursuer should have the right of stopping the pleadings, or determining that they should go on, It was, in fact, making him the lawyer. He should move an Amendment conferring the power of closing the record upon the sheriff alone.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
said, he regretted the absence of the hon. and learned Member from the Committee, but he could not on that account assent to his Amendment. There had been upon the Committee who had considered this question the Solicitor General for England, the late Attorney General for Ireland, the right hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, the present sheriff of Midlothian, the sheriff substitute of Lanarkshire, and others.

§ MR. DUNLOP
said, he proposed to omit this clause, with the view of afterwards inserting other clauses. However, whether his Amendment should be carried or not, he admitted that the Bill would be of very great value in simplifying and improving the whole course of law procedure in Scotland. By the practice which the clause would continue, proofs would be taken from the witnesses, recorded by the sheriff substitute, and referred to a single judge, who had not heard or seen the witnesses. It was a vicious principle that the reviewing judge should have none of the advantages possessed by the judge whose decision be reviewed, He (Mr. Dunlop) proposed, that when a proof was ordered, it should not be taken by the sheriff substitute, but should 327 be reserved for the sittings of the sheriff-principal, who was to make the circuits four times a year in his county; that he should sit and hear the evidence, and himself pronounce judgment; that his judgment should not be reviewable under sums of 50l., except upon points of law, and then that it should be to the Court of Session. If they were to have one trial and one judgment, it was clear that they must select one of the sheriffs before whom the trial was to take place, and he thought it was most judicious to make selection of the sheriff depute, who was always an advocate, rather than the sheriff substitute, who was sometimes only an attorney.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
said, the clause had been very carefully considered by the Select Committee, and he must insist on its being retained as it stood.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he begged to call attention to the circumstance that, inasmuch as appeals were not abolished, the evidence would still require to be taken ad longam, in order to inform the sheriff principal before whom the appeal was taken. This would enormously increase the work of the substitute.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
said, he thought the mode of taking down the evidence proposed by this Bill a decided improvement. Formerly evidence was taken ad longam, but now it was proposed that the judge should set forth the evidence, not by question and answer, but in the form of a narrative. He believed that no real practical difficulty would be experienced in the matter.

§ MR. W. LOCKHART
said, he objected to their proceeding further with the Bill at that late hour (a quarter to one o'clock). Many of the Scotch Members had left, having no idea that the Bill would be proceeded with that night. He should, therefore, move that the Chairman report progress.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion. It was quite possible to get through a good many of the clauses that night, omitting any clause on which there were notices of Amendment by hon. Members who were not now present.

§ COLONEL BLAIR
said, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. W. Lockhart).

§ MR. DUNCAN
said, he hoped they would go on with the Bill. Though he was by no means satisfied with the Bill as it stood, he, nevertheless, thought no delay should take place in passing it through the House.