I would be glad to hear that there is no considerable variation, but I wonder is that phrase not to be taken with a reservation in regard to the Damage to Property Act. Again, the same tendency I have mentioned as observable, from statistics supplied to me in answer to a question, in the High Court is to be observed in the Circuit Courts. As far as the ordinary civil bills are concerned for all items other than in respect of the Damage to Property Act, the work was down by more than one-third. It was, in fact, I think, only raised to the point of showing a decrease as little as one-third because of the impact of the Damage to Property Act in the last couple of years. Of course, that Act gave rise to a big number of cases. They were very good for statistical purposes, as they seemed to swell the legal work. They were, of course, a bad type of case from a good many angles. It was the method of rewarding people for what at one time were considered criminal activities. Apart from that, it is obviously a passing phase. There was, as a matter of fact, a time limit for these cases, which was extended by a judicial decision. Then the Legislature recognised that fact and, I think, extended it a little further. However, the number of cases that still remain to be heard must be very small. If, notwithstanding the disappearance of the type of case under that Act, the ordinary work of the Circuit Courts is at the same point as before, it will mean that the ordinary work has gone up. I very much doubt if that is the case. I would assume that the Department, in procuring these statistics, would have recognised, as anybody must, that the cases for determination in regard to the property that was destroyed at the time of the civil war must be regarded as abnormal and not likely to occur beyond the second or third sittings after the time when the Act came into operation. I presume that they excluded that item from their consideration. If that is so, then the situation is this, that the year we are in shows very little difference from the year before, but that the year before distinctly showed a drop of over 30 per cent. in the ordinary matters falling to be litigated under the authority of the Circuit Courts, whether ordinarily within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts or whether they were cases taken by the consent of the parties. Of course, it has to be added to the statistics given with regard to the High Court as showing that legal work of the civil type is definitely on the decline.
That is interesting to observe at a time when this House is engaged in increasing the number of judges, the argument for the increase of judges being based on the fact, as it must be based on the fact, that the judges were having too much to do, that arrears were mounting up as far as the Circuit Courts were concerned. That phrase was always unjustifiable. There never was any great volume of arrears in the Circuit Court anywhere found to be existing, and I think the majority of the cases found to be of that type were the cases to which the Acting-Minister referred, where the parties were not ready to go on, and those were responsible for the delay. There is far too much comment through the country on delay with regard to the hearing of cases. Dublin, of course, naturally gets a great many more cases than any other part of the country. A very considerable percentage of all the cases tried in the Circuit Courts are tried before the Dublin Circuit Court judges.
There is, from time to time, a considerable pressure of work in the Dublin Circuit Court. Nobody can say that the Dublin Circuit Court judges do not get sufficient work to do. When you swing to the other extreme and say that whatever they get to do they leave a lot in arrears, that is a phrase which is only used by people who have no knowledge of the statistical information provided year by year, and the comment would not be made if the situation was properly understood.
I am not sure that I got the full purport of the remark of the Minister in regard to the moneys expended for the provision of assistants or deputies for the Circuit Court judges. It is clearly recognised that Judge O'Connor has been transferred temporarily to other work. If one is to hark to the comments made by people who expect to be the recipients of money under that other work that he is doing, they expect that he will be occupied for at least three years on that. That may be pessimism. At any rate, that comment is being made. I understood the Minister to say that he is adding something in addition to the amount required for the deputy for Judge O'Connor. That would mean that the Minister is looking forward to some other similar situation arising with regard to another judge or it may be that he is making provision for illness.
