Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Nov 1953

Vol. 143 No. 6

Courts of Justice Bill, 1953—Report.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 7, Section 16, to delete lines 8 and 9 and substitute the following:—"The Government may, if and when they think fit, by Order—".

This amendment is designed to provide that the areas of Circuit Courts will be permissive and not mandatory as is provided in the section as it stands. I would like to remind the House that I have said that it was not intended to go ahead with this reorganisation until we had a report from this committee. Since then we have had a report of the work of the Circuit Courts, for the last year. We find in one case the court only sat 73 days; in another it only sat 91 days and in another 85 days. We feel that even when this Bill is passed there will not be full work for all the Circuit Courts. Although I hope the findings of this committee will not be too long delayed, I do not know that I could say at this stage whether or not I am committed to having promised not to proceed with the reorganisation. If the House thinks I have committed myself, I will stick to my promise; but I think I ought to be allowed to act as circumstances require.

I think the Minister committed himself. I have not got the record here, but that is my belief.

Mr. Boland

I agree I did say something to that effect. We will leave it at that. As the Bill stood it was mandatory and I am amending it now to make it permissive.

This amendment will give the Minister and his Department a chance to see how things will work out under the new jurisdiction, and I think it would be very foolish for the Minister to commit himself until we have had some experience of the new jurisdiction. I can assure the Minister that the particular circuit with which I am familiar is continuously in arrear and special sessions have to be held in order to clear up these arrears. There is no doubt that under the proposals contained in this measure there will be quite a considerable amount of further work for the Circuit Court, and I thinkit would be foolish in the extreme for the Minister to tie this to any hard and fast rule until we have had some experience of the new jurisdiction.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 put and agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 9, Section 22, to delete lines 36 and 37 and substitute the following: "On the making of the Order under Section 21 of this Act the Minister shall by Order declare that such and so many areas, as he shall think proper, shall form."

There was an omission in the last line where we left out the words "District Courts" after the words "and so many". We want to put them into the amendment now.

I have a later amendment which is ruled out of order on the ground that it would increase the charge and I would be glad, therefore, if the Minister would consider the position of a justice whose area embraces part of the borough as well as the county in relation to Dublin and who, in many cases, is giving decrees dealing with matters within the county borough area although he himself is defined for all purposes as a non-metropolitan justice. In view of the substantial increase in the county borough of Dublin and the fact that some new areas have recently been added to the county borough the Minister might consider defining a justice as a metropolitan justice when his area of jurisdiction embraces part of the county borough as well as the county itself.

I support the case made by Deputy Cosgrave. It is well known that there is practically no difference between the work carried on in Kilmainham and Howth and the work done in the Metropolitan District Courts. It is unfortunate that this matter cannot be discussed on a direct amendment because of Standing Orders. The reason for the separate classification, if any such reason exists, in relation to metropolitanjustices is based on the type of business that comes under consideration in the metropolitan courts. If the Minister pays a visit to Kilmainham and then goes on to Morgan Place he will find that exactly the same type of business is conducted in both places and pressure of work is equally high in both. I would urge the Minister to consider dealing with this matter; perhaps that could be done more suitably when it comes before the other House.

If the Minister feels inclined to give way to the suggestions made I would like to remind him that in and around Cork City there is a justice operating on lines similar to those who operate in and around the Dublin metropolitan area. The same is true of Limerick City and Waterford City. The type of business done is of a similar nature. If the Minister is inclined to give way to the claims on behalf of the Dublin justices who operate partly in the city and partly in the county, similar claims can be advanced in relation to Cork, Waterford and Limerick.

I do not agree with the suggestions made. No case has been made and I suggest the Minister leaves the matter as it is.

I am in favour of the suggestion made by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Sweetman. I am looking at the matter from the point of view that in a very short time the area referred to will, in fact, be a metropolitan area almost entirely. The City of Dublin has taken in an additional area because of new housing activities and that additional area is administered by this particular justice.

For some purposes it is, in fact, a metropolitan area at the moment.

In a few years there will be no question about its being a metropolitan area.

I support the views expressed by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Sweetman. I take it that theMinister in deciding to differentiate between metropolitan justices and others took into account the functions exercised by justices in Cork, Limerick and Galway. If that is so, then a very good case has been made for including justices operating on the fringe of the city who deal with work similar to that done in Morgan Place. District justices acting on the fringe of the metropolitan district dealing with matters similar to those which arise in the metropolitan area itself should be classified as metropolitan justices.

Mr. Lynch

I may not have made myself clear, but a justice described as a metropolitan justice is in enjoyment of some extra emolument. The same applies to justices in Cork City. If, as a result of increased work, a more concentrated type of work and a greater variety of work it is felt necessary to give slightly increased emoluments to certain justices, I hold that if that argument applies to justices operating on the fringe of the metropolitan area in Dublin then it should equally apply to justices operating partly inside and partly outside the metropolitan area in Cork and Waterford and Limerick.

Mr. Boland

The answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary is the answer that I was going to give that, if we start, we have to take into consideration Cork, Limerick and Waterford. As Deputies know, I am not a legal man.

We are suggesting that you might come down and have a look some time.

Mr. Boland

What I am told is that the work done in Kilmainham originates in the county, very largely. The case is tried in Kilmainham which is in the borough area but a lot of the work dealt with there is work arising in the County Dublin area and this area also includes part of Kildare and Meath. If there is a case for doing it in one there is a case for doing it in others. All this question will have to be considered when rearrangement is being undertaken.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 9, Section 22 (2), line 41, to add "under sub-section (1) of this section" after "order".

Amendment No. 6 is consequential.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 10, before Section 27, line 54, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) In this section "appointed" means appointed under Section 11 of the Act of 1946 or under Section 21 or Section 26 of this Act.

(2) It shall be lawful for a justice when sitting at a place, on a day, and at an hour appointed for the transaction of any particular class of business of the District Court, to transact at such sitting any other class of business of the District Court.

(3) It shall be lawful for a justice to transfer or adjourn the transaction of any business of the District Court in which he has jurisdiction to either—

(a) another occasion at the place in which he was transacting such business at the time of such transfer or adjournment, whether such occasion is or is not a day and hour appointed, or

(b) to another occasion (whether such occasion is or is not a day and hour appointed) at some other place in his district which is a place appointed for the transaction of business of the District Court, whether such business does or does not include the said business so transferred or adjourned.

This is a drafting amendment.

The Minister gave us an undertaking on the Committee Stage, as well as my recollection goes —I have not got the debates here; I have sent for them—that we could recommitone section if he was not going to bring in something that would provide for the right of a jury on appeal.

Mr. Boland

I have no objection to that.

I am trying to remember on which section it was. I think it was on Section 19 on page 8. The reason I asked for it to be recommitted is so that we can hear the Minister as to why he does not feel disposed to provide for the jury in the manner we were suggesting.

Is not there provision for the jury already?

Not in the High Court, when it goes to appeal.

Surely we are not in order in discussing it on this amendment?

Leave it to the end of the Report Stage.

Very good, Sir, certainly.

Is amendment No.7 a redrafting amendment?

Mr. Boland

Yes. We are substituting this for Section 2 of the Court Officers (Amendment) Act, 1937.

The Public Authorities (Protection) Act was passed as a drafting amendment.

Mr. Boland

That is what it is. The new section will replace Section 2 of the Court Officers (Amendment) Act, 1937, which allows transaction of business at a sitting of the District Court other than business specified in Section 47 of the Officers Act, 1946. It also allows for the holding of such courts at times and places not provided for.

It is a new section?

Mr. Boland

It is.

Does it change the law?

Mr. Boland

It is in substitution.

I do not think wediscussed these possibilities on Committee Stage, did we?

Mr. Boland

I am not sure if we did. I do not think so.

I do not think so.

Mr. Boland

This whole Act will go.

The whole Act goes under amendment No. 13.

Mr. Boland

We are substituting this.

All I want to know is this—it is a harmless kind of inquiry: amendment No.7 purports to be in substitution for a section that exists in an existing Act which is to disappear under amendment No. 13. I want to know if the section set out in amendment No. 7 will exactly reproduce the law as it now is or does this amendment contain some additional matter to what was in the Court Officers (Amendment) Act, 1937?

Mr. Boland

It just substitutes for the existing Act. That Act will go and this section will be taking its place.

Is it the same wording?

Mr. Boland

It will leave it exactly the same, except that we will be proceeding under this Bill instead of under the other Act of 1937.

I accept the Minister's word.

The position was not as envisaged in this new section. It appears to me that under this section it is open to a justice to transfer any case within his district, irrespective of whether the parties consent or not. Surely that is a change.

That is what I want to know.

Have the parties to be notified?

I have just glanced through the section and, on my reading, there is no provision in it that the parties are to be consulted at all. This new section appears to me to give absolute power to a district justice, irrespective of what the parties think,to transfer any particular case to any court within his district.

Apparently he always had the power.

No, he had not.

He certainly had not that power in a civil case, as far as I know.

I think he had in practice.

Mr. Boland

I am informed that he had.

He had. That is my experience.

Mr. Boland

He had. This is exactly the same.

So far as I am concerned it is between ye it is. We have four practising solicitors in the House and one practising member of the Bar. I am a non-practising member of the Bar. All I want to know is, does this new section confer any additional power to what was already in the law? Deputy Moran says he thinks it does. Deputy Sweetman, I think, inclines to that view. Deputy O'Donnell inclines to that view. Deputy Cowan takes the view that it does not.

I take the view that it is happening at the moment.

I think it is happening by consent, not by right. It does not pay to object.

It is one thing if a certain practice is well recognised with the consent of the parties but it is a very different thing if you recognise that practice without reference to the consent of the parties. If through any oversight that change is being made, then the House should not proceed to consider this amendment as a drafting amendment. I would ask the House to remember that when the Public Authorities (Protection) Bill was first brought before the British House of Commons the same question was thenput to the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary's reply was: "This Bill makes no alteration in the law." He was pressed and he reassured the House that this was purely a drafting amendment to the existing law. In fact, it was a revolutionary new departure in law, the nature of which nobody noticed. All I am trying to do is to secure that if we are going to amend the law effectively by that amendment we ought to know what we are doing and not do it with our eyes closed. If, as Deputy Moran says, this is giving the right to a district justice to do something without reference to the wishes of the parties joined before him, whereas heretofore he only had the right to do it with the consent of the parties, the House ought to pause and hear experienced opinion before we give the district justice a new power which he never heretofore had.

Mr. Boland

I am satisfied that we are not giving him any new power. I hope to get this Bill here to-day. If I am wrong, I will make certain of it in the Seanad.

Nobody could be more fair than that.

Mr. Boland

I am sure that is the case.

I understood it was always the case.

Mr. Boland

If I am wrong, I will make certain.

The Act that contains it is gone, under this Bill.

Mr. Boland

That is right.

I want to make the position of the Chair clear on this matter. The Chair was advised that this was not introducing any new matter. If it were introducing new matter it should be a Committee amendment, not a Report amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 11, Section 27 (b), line 4, to delete "£25" and to insert in lieu thereof "£50".

This is increasing the jurisdiction from £25 to £50 in case of tort to make it the same as contract.

Did the Minister say he was going to do that in Committee? I thought he was going to do it in public proceedings.

Mr. Boland

I said I would do it then and I thought we were doing it in Committee, but apparently we had to wait until we came to the Report Stage. Is that what the Deputy is saying?

I think this is so important that we ought to discuss it formally, not informally.

What I want to know is whether it is in order or not, because I understood that the Minister did not say that he was going to do this in Committee. The one he said he was going to change was clause (d), proceeding by the State, and I thought that we changed clause (d) in the Committee Stage, and I understood the Minister was giving us an assurance on Committee Stage that in view of the agreement about the commission nothing except clause (d) would be altered until the commission had reported.

Mr. Boland

I definitely mentioned this.

I think it will be found in column 742 of Volume 142.

It does seem to be a radical departure.

I am satisfied that the Minister did say he would do it——

Mr. Boland

I did tell the House——

——but the fact that he said this does not necessarily mean that we are going to discuss it informally now: It is of such serious consequence that I would like to have it formally and seriously discussed.

It is a revolutionaryproposal to increase the jurisdiction of the court by 400 per cent.

Not revolutionary.

Pretty revolutionary— by 400 per cent., from £10 to £50.

Mr. Boland

Yes, by that.

I withdraw. I was mistaken. I must not have been listening very well.

I would like to support this amendment.

You are on the wrong side of the House.

Whatever side of the House I am on, one thing I am never afraid of is free speech and I do not mind any member of the House speaking for or against an amendment.

The Deputy has a sense of humour, I hope.

I hope the Deputy has, too.

A strategic retreat is now taking place.

I would like to support this amendment. I am a rural Deputy and a solicitor practising in rural Ireland. I am personally aware of the expenses of a legal action, and one of the greatest expenses which we incur is travelling expenses.

On a point of order and to put the matter right is the Minister agreed that we are to deal with this matter, that we are discussing it in Committee now?

Mr. Boland

I have no objection.

In Committee on amendment No. 8. Deputy O'Donnell.

One of the greatest expenses in fighting legal actions is travelling expenses.

God help the poor clients. They have to pay them.

That is what we want you to do to-day, to make it lessexpensive for them. That is the reason why I am supporting this amendment.

Jurisdiction here is going haywire.

I have great sympathy for the clients who pay but not for those who do not pay.

In the county in which I have the privilege of practising our Circuit Court sits in three towns—Donegal, Letterkenny and Ballyshannon. I know litigants who have to travel by motor car. They have no public service vehicle. They have to travel by motor car a distance of 40 miles to attend the Circuit Court. In the areas in which these litigants reside we have monthly sittings of the District Court and we all know that a considerable amount of litigation is now caused in running down actions. A number of the running down actions in rural Ireland are injuries to farmers' stock—cattle, horses, sheep and other animals. I have known animals, the property of farmers, which have been injured valued at £15 and £20, and sooner than incur the expense of a Circuit Court action they have waived the excess and sued in the District Court and accepted the maximum jurisdiction of the District Court, namely, £10, because were they to go into the Circuit Court and to succeed in the Circuit Court, having employed counsel, having travelled by motor car the distance which they would have to travel from their residence to the site of the court, they would have incurred greater expense, even though they succeeded, than they did by obtaining a decree for £10 in the District Court. We all know the value of money is not what it was when the District Court was first established. We all know that the value of money has decreased practically 500 per cent. Since the establishment of the District Court way back in the early days.

Is that real, you know, because 1924 was practically after the first world war, much shorter than this is after the second world war?

I know it was. I quite agree, but I am referring to the value of money. Remember that the value of money had decreased almost 800 per cent. between 1913 and 1920.

Oh yes, but this is between 1924 and 1954 or 1953.

You just take any of the commodities which you could purchase in 1924 and compare them with their prices to-day and you will see the decrease yourself. Take, for instance, cattle. The average price of a two-year-old bullock in those days, a bullock showing two front teeth, was approximately £20. To-day it is as high as £50. I think there is a considerable amount to be said for this. We are going to cut out the expense of employing counsel in the Circuit Court which, in my opinion, is an expensive matter. I know that some counsel might smile.

There is a higher authority, you know, that does not like to see the professions interfered with.

I know, but I am speaking for the lowest class of the profession, my own class, who are nearest to the unfortunate litigant. We have to do the collection of the cash to pay those and very often do it at our own expense.

God help you, you are not as innocent as all that.

You would be surprised.

Mr. Lynch

I would be surprised, anyway.

I have had experience, I am sorry to say.

Well do not blame your solicitor. I am being quite serious, that I think the solicitors' profession is quite competent in dealing with jurisdiction up to £50 in the District Court. We are going to make litigation much cheaper for the litigant in rural Ireland. I know that some members of my profession in the cities and towns might object to it. Someof them do not practise in the District Court. They prefer not to practise in the District Court. Some of them consider attendance in the District Court is a nuisance, something which they can do without; but we have to take the rough with the smooth. We have to look after the unfortunate clients. We have to see that they get the litigation to which they are justly entitled as cheaply as possible, and I am giving this amendment my full support.

I support this amendment. My complaint is not like other members of the House, even those in favour of it—it is that it is not going far enough. This amendment possibly also gives me an opportunity to refer to some of the statements made in this House during my absence on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I want to make it quite clear to those who suggested that I was running away from the amendments I had tabled that nothing could be further from the truth. I want to put it on record that it was also untrue to say that I was aware that these amendments would have been discussed in my absence. It appears to me that there has been a certain amount of indecent haste in dealing with the Bill from all sides of the House and that the minds of a number of Deputies have been confused by the fact that this Bill purported to deal with the question of judicial salaries as well as the question of jurisdiction. I think this House could discuss the question of increasing the jurisdiction of certain of our courts and of bettering our legal code in a much more efficient manner if the question of judicial salaries were dealt with in another measure.

The Deputy is now discussing the main purpose of the Bill which has already been decided.

So far as this amendment is concerned, when he goes to the Seanad I think the Minister should make the amount mentioned in the amendment £100 instead of £50. I think when this and the other amendments that he has introduced in connection with jurisdiction in the District Court go to the Seanad heshould reconsider the question with a view to making the amount £100 in contract and tort in the District Court and £1,000 in the Circuit Court. I could never understand why there should be any differentiation on the question of jurisdiction as between contract and tort. I am sure that my colleagues will agree, that the law of contract is much more complex and difficult to most of us than the law of tort. I cannot conceive anything more simple to deal with in the District Court than questions of tort and I could never understand why in the earlier legislation this differentiation should be made—that a jurisdiction of up to £10 was given in tort to the District Court whereas the jurisdiction in contract is £25. I am glad that at this stage, at least, the Minister has put both contract and tort on an equal basis so far as jurisdiction is concerned.

I understand that the Minister has announced that he is setting up a commission to deal with this matter of jurisdiction in general, but I do not believe that it will be of much use. I do not believe that the Minister for Health, for instance, would have got anywhere if he referred the Health Bill to the members of the Irish Medical Association, and I think the Minister for Justice will get nowhere with law reform if he refers that question to a bunch of lawyers outside this House. This House is the proper body to deal with the matter. I have been a long time, over 15 years, trying to bring about some of these reforms. I have no hope in any outside commission to decide this question, because I know the dice will be loaded against those who hold the view that our legal system needs to be recast to suit the needs of our people. I know the vested interests that exist in this matter and that in any outside body these interests will be catered for and that their view will prevail. I hold that this House is the proper body to deal with the matter, and I hope to give it an opportunity by way of a private Bill, or whatever other means may be open to me, to ensure that this House will have its say in formulating a legal system for our people that will be within therange of our people's pockets, so that everyone in the State will be assured of justice, irrespective of the depth of his purse.

Mr. Boland

I want to assure the Deputy that nothing can be done without the consent of this House, whatever the commission may report.

I want to say that I agree with what Deputy Moran said in the later stages of his contribution. Of course, I also agree with what the Minister states: that whatever the recommendations of any outside body may be, the matter must be finally decided in this House. One of the greatest mistakes we could make would be to leave all these matters to be considered by the profession, simply on the basis of professional interest. I think that that would be most undesirable and certainly I would be opposed to it. You cannot bring about reforms simply by asking people who have got into the groove of the machinery to alter it. They cannot see how it can be altered but a person outside can see how it can be altered. However, that is neither here nor there as far as the amendment is concerned.

Have you any justice in the country at the moment?

I shall talk about justice in a moment; I am talking about law now. I came here to-day from the annual meeting of my own professional organisation at which the president delivered his presidential address. To my great amazement, I heard him raise some question about compulsory Irish—that there should not be compulsory Irish in examinations under the Incorporated Law Society. One can get into a terrible groove when one begins to think so far back as that. Every person nowadays entering any examination for the Incorporated Law Society, the Bar or any other profession, is a capable, competent Irish speaker.

How is that relevant to the amendment?

I think it is.

There is.nothing about compulsory Irish in the amendment.

It is perfectly relevant to the question of whether we should allow ourselves to remain in a groove of thought that has not moved for the last 40 years. That anybody to-day should say that it is wrong to have compulsory Irish for admission to the legal profession amazes me.

It cannot be discussed on this amendment.

But the amendment gives me a chance of saying so.

It also gives you a chance of singing Ta-ra-ra-Boom-de-a. It does not seem to have any further relevance.

I remember the time when I was a student of politics——

The Deputy will come to the amendment and keep his recollections for some other occasion.

——I used to read Deputy Dillon with avidity and I thought he was a marvellous Ta-ra-ra-Boom-de-a, or whatever you might call it.

The Deputy will please come to the amendment.

The amendment deals with a very important matter— as to whether we should raise the jurisdiction of the District Court from £10 in tort to £50. The general intention when it was being discussed before is that it should go from £10 to £25. In contract there was an agreement that because of the monetary values involved, we should move on from £25, but we had in the 1924 Act the distinction, tort £10 and £25 contract. It was agreed that in contract we should move from £25 to £50 and that we should more than double the jurisdiction in tort from £10 to £25. I think that is reasonable. I am a great supporter of the District Court and of the idea of giving the District Courtsubstantial jurisdiction, but I do think —and I speak now as a solicitor with some experience of the District Court —that the alteration in tort from £10 to £50 is a big jump. It is too big a jump at one stage. Under this Bill we substantially increase the jurisdiction of the District Court. We are taking away a good lot from the Circuit Court in regard to contract. In quite a number of matters we are increasing the work, the jurisdiction and the importance of the District Court. I think that perhaps we would be going too far by agreeing at the present moment to increase the tort jurisdiction from £10 to £50. Every Deputy knows that tort means an action for damages arising out of negligence of one kind or another. It is a claim for compensation arising out of negligence.

That is perhaps excessive simplification.

I do not want to give the legal definition. I want to simplify it as far as I can. Perhaps that is over-simplification. But that is really what tort is as distinct from contract where an issue arises between two parties on an ordinary matter of contract, say, a bill for goods sold and delivered amounting to £50, which can be easily dealt with by the district justice because there is not very much involved in it. But, where a motor car strikes an animal or an individual and the individual, say, places his damage at £50——

I would like to meet such an individual.

It does happen. If that individual places his damage at £45, £49 or £50, the whole question is whether the District Court is the right court to deal with a claim of that magnitude. Under the old jurisdiction, that matter was determined by the Circuit Court judge and, if necessary, by a jury. The plaintiff had the right in certain circumstances to have a jury to try that issue or the defendant had a right to have a jury to decide it. During the emergency there were certain Emergency Powers Orders which affected the right to a jury and, to alarge extent, juries do not now exist in the Circuit Court except in regard to criminal matters. It was considered, where you had an issue of tort from £50 up to £300, that that matter would be dealt with in the Circuit Court.

There is this difference between the Circuit Court and the District Court, that in the Circuit Court you have a list of cases for a particular day. There may be one case or two or three cases listed and the registrar endeavours to fix the list in such a way that litigants know their cases will come off on that particular day. They have their professional, technical, medical and other witnesses, generally speaking, in an issue of that kind. The District Court, which is a summary court, deals with cases of no lights on bicycles, cattle wandering on the road, drunkenness, non-attendance at school, and 101 little summary charges.

Is it right that a tort case involving a matter of £50 and professional witnesses such as engineers and doctors should be thrown into that maelstrom? I do not think it is satisfactory to the litigants. You have also the mentality of the justice who deals with the matter in the ordinary way. After all, the success of the District Court is based on this, that the District Court is speedy and quick in its decisions and gives them on the spot and, if you are not satisfied, you can lodge an appeal within seven days and go off to the Circuit Court.

All money. It is a racket.

Plenty of money.

Solicitors and barristers and always no justice.

It is almost like politics.

Very few of the professional men die rich.

Some people earn money in politics that they would not earn outside the House.

This debate tends to get trenchant.

It is not trenchant, it is profound. As I say, you have the right of appeal where a case is dealt with quickly by a district justice. Is a district justice with a crowded court the proper person to throw into this matter of a tort action involving damages to the extent of £50? It may be that, from experience in which we have tried out the District Court, there should be an alteration from £10 to £25. It may be that this House would come to the conclusion that it was right to give the district justice an increase in jurisdiction from £25 to £50. But the point I am putting to the Minister is this: Let us be agreed on the £25 jurisdiction. Let us try out the new machinery, because in this Bill there is some new machinery. The tort and contract jurisdiction of the Circut Court has gone up to £600. There is provision for a new judge of the High Court and for a reduction in the number of justices. I should like to see all this machinery put into operation and the increase from £10 to £25 given and if, from practical experience over a couple of years, we think it would be proper to increase the jurisdiction from £25 to £50, then there would be no trouble in doing it as far as this House is concerned. I have noticed that because of the speed with which district justices are bound to do the work, particularly in Dublin where district justices may get hundreds of cases to deal with in a day; even 300 cases before lunch is not an unreasonable figure to mention for one of our District Courts——

Mr. Lynch

Two a minute?

Three hundred cases before lunch is not unreasonable.

I suggest that the debate is now getting poetical.

Deputy O'Donnell was in one of these courts recently and saw the expeditious manner in which these cases were dealt with.

Where there were pleas of guilty.

It does not matter.

Three hundred cases is an exaggeration.

It is not.

What are the hours?

The hours are 10.30 a.m. until 1 p.m.—2½ hours. Before the discussion ends on this section I shall ring up the District Court and get the precise number of cases dealt with by this particular justice every morning.

They must all plead guilty.

They would not get time even to plead guilty.

There would not be time to read the charges.

The charge is not read. The Guard never gets as far as the box to give evidence before the matter is decided. It is really a joke if you like, but the work in the City of Dublin is being done and 300 cases are being disposed of before lunch. If a person appears, he gets off under the Probation Act and, if he does not, he is fined 5/-. Some people may think that that is the right way to dispense justice. I do not think it is.

We have a different mentality in the Circuit Court. The judges feel that they are not being rushed. They have not to clear off 300 cases in a forenoon or an afternoon or in a week. The fact is that they have one case opened to them and evidence for the plaintiff and the defendant given and they decide whether there should be an acquittal or a conviction.

It all depends on the humour he is in.

It does, to a large extent, and it depends on the defendant, too. Some defendants can go before a judge and get off, while other defendants go before a judge and get a knock on the head. A defendant, when he goes out, if he has got a knock on the head, does not care an awful lot for the judge, but if he getsan opportunity of saying his say he is not as bad as if he had got a knock on the head without having had the opportunity of talking and putting up his case. For that reason, I think that the Minister ought to give the judiciary a chance of working on the new increased jurisdiction, on working on the £25 tort, until we experience how it may be.

My general experience of district justices is that they want to try a case as fairly as they can, but if they are going to have hundreds of cases on their list to deal with they will begin to deal with them quickly and without giving proper consideration to the matters that are involved. I had a case not so long ago of a person who was summoned on a very little trivial summons. The district justice listened to it, and his decision was such that it shocked me. He said that, unless there had been something done, the summons would not have been issued, and on that basis, he decided the issue. Now, I am perfectly certain that when I say that happened not so long ago I am exaggerating a little. It happened yesterday. That was the basis on which a district justice decided the case, that a summons would not have been issued——

Thank God, we here are not a court of appeal.

Surely to goodness Dáil Éireann is not going to set itself up as a court of appeal in cases that come before the District Court. That would be a very dangerous procedure.

I do not know.

I cannot see the relevancy of that on this Bill.

I can see the relevancy of it. It is absolutely relevant to what is under discussion. I am not going to allow Deputy Dillon or anybody else to tell me what I should say, but the whole issue is whether you are going to give an increase in jurisdiction to a court that will not exercise its judicial functions in a proper manner.

We cannot discuss cases that occurred yesterday.

You can discuss examples, and what case would be better to put before the House than one that came before the court yesterday, which is completely fresh in my mind?

It has no relation good, bad or indifferent to what we are discussing.

It has relation to the competence of particular justices to deal with particular matters of tort which involve questions of damages up to £50. Of course, I know that Deputy Dillon is going to support me in this. He will be opposed to the increased jurisdiction in tort from £10 to £50. I know that he will support me in this. He knows that it is too big of a jump and that there are too many issues involved. Where an action for damages amounting to £50 is involved, I say it should get serious consideration. It just cannot be decided by a snap of the finger as unfortunately it would have to be if we leave it to the District Court.

I may not advance the same arguments that Deputy Dillon would advance for it. The fact that I was advancing certain arguments that were in Deputy Dillon's mind would mean to him that they were not good arguments because I had put them forward. What I am putting forward is that this is a serious matter, and that what you have to take into account is one's own experience and the principles that are involved.

One should do his best to get the House to come to a correct decision on this. In my view, we are going just a little too far. Perhaps in a few years, when I see how the thing works, I might be agreeable to a further extension of jurisdiction. But, for the moment, I would ask the Minister to agree with his first intention of leaving tort at £25, see how it works, and if it works successfully, and you think there should be an increase in jurisdiction, then grant it.

For slightly differentreasons to those advanced by Deputy Cowan, I think that the Minister is unwise in bringing in this amendment. The basis of change of jurisdiction in this Bill is, by and large, doubling it. There never was any discussion in this House on the Committee Stage as to whether the differentiation that was made in the 1924 Act between a limited jurisdiction in tort and a limited jurisdiction in contract was wise or not. I think that is one of the matters that must come into consideration when we are thinking about the problems on our whole legal system that were before the commission.

By and large, it is true to say that actions for contract, that is taking the average action, take very considerably less time than an action for tort. Take actions for contract which come before the District Court, and in respect of which the jurisdiction of the District Court was doubled, I would venture to say that, nine times out of ten, these are actions for goods sold and delivered and that were not paid for. It is a fair argument, I think, to say that in actions for goods sold and delivered, the same quantum of goods that now cost £50 could have been bought for approximately £25 in 1924. That, by and large, is a fair argument, and there is a definite case to be made on it. As regards actions in tort in the District Court or elsewhere, they take time. Of course, you will have a big contract action that will take a very long time, but the point I am making is that it is actions for tort that take time. If the jurisdiction of the District Court is increased in this way, then the District Courts are going to be absolutely and completely cluttered up, and it is not going to be possible to get the business done in them. There is also this objection. When you increase the jurisdiction beyond a certain point, you come to the stage at which it may be more expensive than less expensive to carry out the business. There is always that danger, though I agree, of course, at once that that danger applies far more to the Circuit Court jurisdiction than it does to the District Court jurisdiction.

We have never heard any real solid argument or view put forward by theMinister as to why the 1924 differentiation between contract and tort should now be wiped out. That seems to me to be the kernel of the whole matter, and unless we have solid arguments put forward on that I think it would be wrong to do what is being proposed. If I may be allowed to show the irrelevancies of the previous speaker I personally feel that it is nonsense to have courts of any sort dealing with cases at the rate of two per minute—I think that was the computation that Deputy Dillon made—or something like 300 before lunch. It is nonsense to have any courts working in that way and the only possible way of dealing with that type of congestion is to provide that in regard to certain obvious specific offences such as parking under a "no waiting" sign—an offence which I occasionally commit myself as well as many other members of this House—in some fixed offences, offences like that where there can be no argument, and which can be dealt with by rule of thumb, there could be a fixed fine with the defendant having the right to take the matter into court again. Unless you do something like that, and if you bring in this amendment in addition, it will merely mean that the work of the District Court will become hopelessly congested.

There has been no case made for changing the principle that is involved between the two types of claim which has existed since 1924 and though there have been from time to time complaints about jurisdiction—to get the jurisdiction of the courts extended— there never has been any complaint that I have had that the jurisdiction of the two in the ratio of ten to 25 was a wrong ratio.

I want to raise a point in respect of this amendment which does give me some real concern as I think it is a matter of principle. All the discussion heretofore has dwelt on expedition and expense. There is the question of justice, and it is a very important question. Because poor people, people of small property, bring their modest affairs to court, we must not, as a legislature, treat their affairs with contemptuous indifference asbeing of insignificant value because the amount at stake is small. I do not think cheap justice, as a rule, is good justice, and when we ask ourselves in the background of rural life in Ireland: what is tort? We must not accept Deputy Cowan's thumbnail definition of tort.

Tort in rural Ireland—I speak subject to correction—for the purposes of the District Court, excludes trespass and you are left with actions not only for negligence but for assault and a variety of other quarrels that arise between neighbours. Now, where you get into the sphere of a substantial sum—and £50 is a substantial sum— the matters involved in such litigation are not insignificant. They are substantial. Does anyone in this House advert to the fact that raising the jurisdiction in tort of the District Court to £50 withdraws from the litigants the right they have hitherto enjoyed of access to a jury? If your action in tort was in excess of £10 heretofore, you went to the Circuit Court where, at the option of the litigant, access might be had to a jury.

You can do it now, too. There is nothing to prevent you issuing the proceedings in the Circuit Court.

But can you get them transferred to the Circuit Court if the plaintiff does not want it?

You can initiate the proceedings in the Circuit Court.

But suppose I am not the initiator—can I transfer them? I may not be a rural solicitor but I am a rural shopkeeper, and I know whereof I speak. One party is denied access to a jury. That may or may not be a matter of grave significance but it is a matter to which the House ought to advert. It is a very grave thing to determine here that in respect of issues in which heretofore litigants had the right to claim a jury we should now withdraw that right from them, because if the defendant finds himself with proceedings initiated in the District Court and is dissatisfied with the verdict and goes on appealto the Circuit Court he has not the right to a jury on appeal. Is not that so? Do we advert to our intention to do that? Some of us may think that it is a desirable thing. I am not so sure.

I think Deputy Cowan's description of the tumult and confusion which characterises the proceedings of the District Court as he knows them is very remote from the truth. True, the volume of work to be done in the municipal courts is greater than in rural courts. It is ludicrous to suggest there is anything like the precipitateness of judgment that he refers to in the District Courts in rural Ireland, and that is what I am primarily thinking of. I am certainly not satisfied and I have heard no argument made here or elsewhere to persuade me that it is a desirable thing to raise the jurisdiction of the District Court to £50 in matters of tort. Who says it is? Who makes the case? I have not heard it made. The only case I have heard made here to-day was that it might save travelling expenses for those who may have their business discharged in the District Court instead of having to refer to the Circuit Court.

And it may not.

And it may not, because either party have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court and when you get into the range of judgment of £40 with costs, which brings the costs of the whole procedure perhaps into the region of £75, how many people in rural Ireland who have at stake not only a sum of £70 or £75 but also the issue of a quarrel between neighbours —and mind you it wants to be a pretty bitter quarrel in rural Ireland before two neighbours will go into court—are they going to let the bone go with the dog on the decision of the district justice when they can have another row, with suitable amendments to their testimony, in the Circuit Court?

Of course there will be those who say that in the present system, if they go into the Circuit Court and get their verdict there, they may proceed to the High Court on circuit. That is true.But remember, I am not attacking the system. I am refuting an argument made in defence of the increase of jurisdiction in the District Court, and that argument was that it would save litigants' expenses. I do not think it would.

The case might not be reached on the day it is due to be called.

I think that argument is invalid. I know it is going to deny juries to people who heretofore had the right of access to a jury. I know it is going to bring into the District Court for summary judgment not only the legal issue joined between the parties but the issue of prestige and the whole riposte that we, who know the country, understand is involved in legal proceedings between neighbours. Now, remember, we still retain in this city the evil, rotten system of appointing temporary district justices. I do not think that a temporary district justice is a suitable person to decide an issue of this kind.

It is a good idea to try some of them out temporarily.

If Deputy Cowan continues to make observations of that kind, I shall make a tart reply. Deputy Cowan is a very sensitive man; he likes to make tart observations but he hates to hear tart replies, and I am now trying to exercise forbearance. I do not believe in the system of appointing judges under the screw of blackmail: we will give you a run and, if you do what you are expected to do, you will get a job; but if you show any independence vis-à-visthe Executive, out you go. That is no way to appoint judge. Judges should be independent.

Do not let us forget here in Dublin that an action in tort in rural Ireland means much more than £50. Do not let us forget that in rural Ireland, if you are a defendant in an action for tort, it may be your reputation that is at stake and the money is of very secondary consideration. Do not let us forget that if the attack upon yourreputation is one of sufficient gravity, it might be a very great and irreparable disaster if you did not have access to a jury. Who steals my purse steals thrash, but he who steals my reputation steals all: there may be many, many occasions in which an action in tort may mean the difference between a litigant's reputation amongst his neighbours and his everlasting disgrace. That man wants the protection of a jury, and he recoils with horror from the thought that so grave an issue may be determined by a district justice with an appeal to a Circuit Court judge sitting without a jury.

I am simply making the case now against this proposed change. I have heard no case which holds water for it and I am asking this House not to accept this change. What has shocked me a little to-day is that we are suddenly presented with an amendment on the Report Stage, an amendment which no one seemed to think was of very great significance. I think this is an amendment of immense importance. I am against this amendment. I understand the case Deputy O'Donnell has made for it, but I think, on balance, the argument is against him. I would ask the Minister for Justice to reflect. I would ask him to tell us has he heard weighty argument for this amendment, for I suggest to him that, without weighty argument, he certainly ought not to increase the jurisdiction of the District Court by 400 per cent. in matters of tort. I doubt the wisdom of increasing the jurisdiction of the District Court from £10 to £25 in matters of tort but, if all are agreed that it is politic, at least I would ask the Minister to think well and to produce here very potent and very cogent arguments before he asks the House to take the further step of increasing the jurisdiction of the District Court by 400 per cent. on the Report Stage of this Bill when we have before us the prospect of a full-scale inquiry into the whole question of jurisdiction and when, as a result of that inquiry, this further step can be taken if patient and informed inquiry reports to us that such a step is desirable.

I want to make a few observations on the advisability,or otherwise, of increasing the jurisdiction of the District Court to the extent sought in this amendment. I presume that a number of Deputies, principally those who have no legal qualifications, will be attracted by the proposition that the increase in jurisdiction will result is cheaper litigation.

May I say that the reverse is true: the laymen are against it and the lawyers are for it?

Whoever is for it, I take it that would be the principal ground on which this increase in jurisdiction would be recommended. I have no doubt whatsoever that this increase in jurisdiction will mean increased expenses on litigants because the first thing solicitors will do will be to increase the fees in the District Court for cases between £10 and £50 and that increased expense will be doubled in 90 per cent. of the cases because there will be appeals in 90 per cent. of the cases. Anybody who thinks, therefore, that this amendment will endure for the benefit of the general public is making a great mistake.

I have no objection against colleagues in the lower profession making more money or getting more work within their own areas. That is a perfectly laudible, legitimate and understandable point of view. Let us examine the matter on that basis if that is the basis on which it is put, and let us not camouflage it on the basis of public interest. So far as I know there has been no demand of a public nature from people in the rural areas, or elsewhere, for an increase in the tort jurisdiction of the District Court. This proposed change is being made, so far as we know, without any great public demand for the change, apart from certain sections of the legal profession. Possibly that argument will be open to the rejoinder that if there are cases which are now permitted to be brought within the jurisdiction of the District Court up to a limit of £50, some junior counsel will lose money, but I do not think junior counsel will lose that much money.

In fact a lot of them will be briefed in the District Court.

It will mean that people who practise locally will be able to fill in during the recess or even during the sittings of the Circuit Court judge by doing cases in the District Court. That will impose an extra cost on litigation. I do not think it can be established that this will mean cheap law. Irrespective of the value of money or the fall in the value of money, a case involving £50 is a substantial case in this country in the rural areas. Some years ago I appeared in a case in Cork in which one of the parties to the action asked what it would cost if he took a certain step. He was told it would cost him the price of a cow. That was the value put on litigation at that time when cattle were running about £30 per head. To-day cattle are averaging £70 to £80 a head. Country people have a very clear understanding of what it costs to go to litigation and if they go to litigation they are prepared to pay the cost. They do not mind the cost very much because other considerations are more important, for example, considerations of local prestige and so forth. I want the Minister to put out of consideration as having any valid effect in this argument the idea that this step will reduce the cost of litigation. It will not reduce the cost. It will mean that solicitors' fees and barristers' fees will be put up accordingly and there will be a double set of costs because 90 per cent. of the cases will go on appeal from the District Court to the Circuit Court. In the country a £50 case is a serious case. Consider libel and slander: £50 damages in a case of libel is a big decree.

Mr. Boland

They cannot bring a libel case to the District Court. Libel and slander cannot be brought.

They are not included. They are not within the jurisdiction.

Are they intended to be brought in by an increased jurisdiction in tort?

Mr. Boland

No, they are still excluded. I want to be clear on that.

Then my argument on that particular point is gone. I wanted to be sure that they would not be brought in by increasing jurisdiction in tort because libel and slander are specific instances of the law of tort. I want to put another and an even greater consideration to the Minister against this proposed jurisdiction.

When the change was made by the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, providing for the High Court to go on circuit, to go down the country and hear appeals, one of the principal arguments that appealed to me personally above all the other arguments for the change of the system was the fact that it brought the judge of the High Court down to the people, that small cases could be heard by the highest judges in the land, that the members of the superior Courts, Supreme and High, would go down amongst the people. We had a tradition in this country, stemming from our history and the kind of justice that was administered by the British courts when they were here, of disrespect for the law. One of the problems that faced this country when we got our own Government and our own Parliament was to change that outlook on the law and to make the people understand that the law and the administration of the law thenceforth was Irish law made by an Irish Parliament and administered by Irish judges and to increase the respect for law and for the administration of the law.

That is a most powerful argument for sending down the High Court and Supreme Court judges on circuit, so that people with small cases would have an opportunity of having their cases determined by the highest courts and that the people in the country would be able to see the High Court judges and the Supreme Court judges in their own areas and in their own atmosphere.

A £50 case is a big case and persons involved in that would like to have a decision of the High Court. Without inany way aspersing the character or capacity of any of the district justices at present operating, there is no doubt that the people who are operating in the District Court are not as experienced or not as learned as the judges who occupy the Circuit Court bench. There cannot be any doubt about that. Perhaps the Minister knows the old epigram made by the late Arthur Clery that inferior courts were or should be quick, courteous and generally wrong. There is a lot in that. It is well to have speedy justice, quick justice and courteous justice and even if the judge goes wrong occasionally, on an average he will hit the thing with a certain amount of common sense, which is what district justices ought to bring to bear upon consideration of cases before them. If you bring these cases of higher jurisdiction mixed up with cases of common assault, mixed up with cases of indictable offences, mixed up with other cases of motor-car offences and all the rest of it, they are just going to get a short knock and there is bound to be appeal to the circuit judge and double costs, and nobody will be satisfied. I very seldom met a litigant who, when he had the chance of having his case heard by a High Court or Supreme Court judge, was not satisfied that he got a fair run and had done all he could to assert his rights.

When this system was inaugurated by the passing of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936—speaking for my colleagues in the Munster circuit, in Cork—when we met there on the first sitting of the High Court on circuit, we recognised amongst ourselves professionally that the High Court and the Supreme Court judges going on circuit were going down to the people to hear cases and that the people should have their cases heard at the cheapest possible rate, and we agreed to cut our fees to the very minimum, nearly approaching what they were under the old system.

If there is any substance in the suggestion that there is any number of cases between £25 and £50 that should be brought to the District Court, you are going to prevent those people who have what are regarded in the country as substantial cases from getting access to High Court and SupremeCourt justice. It is a thing that they value. I know personally from my own fairly wide experience, practising in every court in this country, that the ordinary country people want to have their cases determined by a High Court judge. Nobody will be satisfied with the decision of a district justice. Nobody has greater appreciation of the capacity of a person administering the law, whether he be in the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court or the Supreme Court, than the people of rural Ireland. They have a great interest in law. They have now a great respect for the law. But, if they have a case involving considerations between themselves and their neighbour, they will only be satisfied if they get a hearing from a person they respect and in whom they have the utmost confidence. The circuit judges, in normal cases, do command that respect because the people know that the people who are appointed to the Circuit Court are in practically every case—not every case—people of wide experience, people who have made their living as tradesmen at their profession, people who have good knowledge of the law and, if they get a fair hearing before them, the people are satisfied and it is only in a small percentage of cases that there is appeal.

That is a very important consideration which should be brought to bear on those people who may be deluded by specious arguments about cheap litigation, the poor man's court, and all the rest of it. They should not attach any importance to them at all.

I have no doubt that this extension of jurisdiction will mean increased costs on litigants. If anybody thinks I am exaggerating, then I will say that it will not in any way cheapen litigation. I have no doubt whatever about that. I believe it will increase expenses because I believe there will be increased legal fees. At all events, I am certain that there will be no decrease. There will be less appreciation of the administration of justice and people will be deprived of what I consider to be a great privilege for people down the country, namely, that the judges of the Supreme Court and HighCourt should come down to them in their own areas and be there available to them at a comparatively cheap rate as they are at present.

Is not there substance in the apprehension that this will operate to deny certain persons access to a jury?

There is no question of doubt about it. In the Circuit Court they are entitled to a jury. Of course it is possibly right to add that, even though there is a jury, there is also appeal to the High Court. Nevertheless they have a right to a jury, which is a valuable right, as I think anybody practising in certain Circuits Courts will know.

Mr. Boland

When I introduced the Bill I had proposed to increase the jurisdiction from £10 to £25 and it was largely as a result of the debate that took place on Second Reading that I considered increasing it to £50. As far as I remember—I have not looked up the records since this debate started to-day—on all sides of the House there seemed to be general agreement that we ought to increase jurisdiction in tort as in contract. In addition to that I have had representations made to me by solicitors' associations down the country and by one district justice who actually pressed me and he said, quite contrary to what both Deputy Dillon and Deputy Costello said, that the cases would be decided more speedily and more cheaply.

Both are doubtful, I think.

Not a bit doubtful in my opinion. I have no doubt in the world about either point.

Mr. Boland

I had thought that Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Moran, who are both country solicitors, made a good case for the increased jurisdiction. When the Bill was being drawn up we went as far as possible to get agreement. I am not trying to put in the increase here. My original proposals were put in as a result of full consideration and I thought myselfthat the increase up to £25 was quite adequate. That was my opinion. I am not a legal man but I listened to Deputies on both sides of the House and, although I have not got the speeches here, my recollection certainly is that on the Second Reading stage the majority of those who spoke anyway appeared to be in favour of the increase. I do not know what to do about this now. I think, having listened to what was said, that the best thing perhaps would be to let the whole thing as it is in the Bill and let the whole question of this increase in jurisdiction go—let us have a recommendation. I think this would be the best thing. I do not want to put it to a division. It is not by any means a Party matter.

Nobody intended to make it a Party matter.

Mr. Boland

I am not suggesting that anybody wanted to. I do not know what we can do now because we cannot have agreement. We have Deputy Moran and Deputy O'Donnell, two experienced country solicitors, saying that it ought to be increased, and Deputy Cowan and the main Opposition speakers—most of them anyway— against it, so I do not see how we can get agreement anyway.

We are on the halfway line—£25.

Mr. Boland

Yes, £25 is in the Bill. I do not know what to do about it unless we leave it there at £25.

Leave it at £25.

If I might intervene for a moment with the Minister, I made the case at the start that so far as I knew there was nobody looking for this increased jurisdiction except members of the legal profession, and that is corroborated by the Minister.

Members of the Bar.

They are members of the legal profession. I have no objection to members of my profession or the allied profession, the solicitors,making money out of their job. That is what they are there for. But they should put it on that basis and not on the basis that we are doing it for the public benefit. If we are doing it for our own benefit, that is all right, but let us not do it on the basis of the public benefit. What the Minister said has corroborated me that there was no public demand from the legal profession, but from one district justice. I repeat that in my opinion not only will there be no decrease in the cost but there will be an increase in the cost. I have no personal interest in this matter one way or the other.

If the Deputy has no personal interest in the matter he has been extremely vehement on this subject. Why has he taken upon himself to suggest that the only interest that Deputies like myself and Deputy O'Donnell have in this matter is the question of legal fees?

I did not say any such thing.

The Deputy certainly implied it. I want to make it quite clear to this House that there is nothing further from my mind; and I am sure that the same is the case with Deputy O'Donnell, and that we wanted nothing other than to make for speedy and cheaper litigation. Let us examine for the moment the argument advanced by Deputy Costello. He says that generally speaking the District Courts—I think I heard him say that they were supposed to give speedy justice, courtesy, and that they were generally wrong.

They should be wrong.

I would suggest to Deputy Costello that there are far more appeals from the Circuit Court to the High Court and far more appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court than there are from the decisions of the district justices to the Circuit Court. I am quite sure that if the figures are got for this they will prove what I am saying, so it would appear that in the superiorcourts you get slow justice and that they are generally wrong.

And no justice at all.

Perhaps no justice, at a far greater expense than you do in the justice you get from the District Courts. The big part of the expenses of litigation is not the costs but the question of witnesses' expenses, particularly the expenses of professional witnesses, and everybody knows who keeps an open mind on this matter that people now under the proposals of this Bill can bring an action in tort up to £50 in their own home-town or their own market town, nearest to them. They and their witnesses, including professional witnesses, are there on the spot, and therefore they will not be put to the expense, and the very great expense, of bringing a similar action in the Circuit Court. Take the circuit I am used to practising in in Mayo—the Western Circuit, No. 4, which covers the County of Mayo. Litigants in my own county have to travel distances of 50 and 60 miles to the places where the Circuit Court sits if they are going to bring an action. If a cow is hit by a car, for instance, as the law stands they have to bring the action in the Circuit Court because the damages are invariably over £10. They have to travel to the town of Castlebar or Westport or Swinford and travel distances of 50 miles. Car hire alone for their services is a very big amount.

From Belmullet?

From Belmullet or from Achill Island, or on the other side from Shrule on the Galway border.

Is not the remedy for the Circuit Court to have one sitting in Belmullet?

The Circuit Court sits, I understand, once, if not twice, a year in Belmullet, but I am taking it that the Circuit Court does not sit any nearer to Achill than the towns of Castlebar or Westport. From Keel in Achill to Westport would be 40 or 50miles, and the same to Castlebar. In the same way, people from Shrule, Kilmaine and places of that distance from the town of Ballyhaunis have to come to attend the centre where the circuit sits, a distance of 30 to 40 miles.

Where does the District Court sit?

The District Court sits, for instance, in Achill Island, and the local islanders in the Island of Achill have to pay for costly car hire for their witnesses and take them up to the town of Castlebar for their cases, but they will not have to do that if this section goes through. Take the position of, say, a doctor or a veterinary surgeon or an engineer, three gentlemen you often have to have in some of these tort cases, speaking generally of tort cases. I would like Deputies to know what it costs to bring these men 40 or 50 miles and have them hanging around the Circuit Court for, not perhaps one day, but certainly oftentimes for two days, if not longer. To suggest that this cannot be fixed in the District Court any more than it can be fixed in the Circuit Court does not bear examination. There is nothing in the world to stop a District Court clerk fixing the list. If the list was in a very crowded condition, there is nothing to prevent the District Court clerk or the professional men in the particular case fixing it for a particular day.

Is not that one of the difficulties—that district justices have so many courts to do in a month, and if you are going to give them extra courts to do in one or other of their areas you are going to cause a certain amount of upset?

Oh, indeed you are not. The suggestion of the Minister and the Department is that district justices have not enough to do in all those areas. That is the suggestion of the Department.

Yes, but when you give them more work to do and there are more days to sit you have no extra days in which to take the extra business.

Not necessarily more days at all. In many country districts —I am speaking of the parts of the country that I know, the district justices carrying out their job in rural Ireland—in very many cases, as a matter of fact, it is the exception rather than the rule that the district justice has to sit after lunch. It would not occur unless there is a deposition case. But the point I am at is this: that by conferring this jurisdiction in these ordinary small tort cases you enable the people to have their cases litigated in the District Court in their home-town or in the nearest town to them, with a certain saving of all the heavy witnesses' expenses that are involved in making them go along to the centre in which the Circuit Court sits.

Deputy Dillon makes the point about a jury—that you deprive a litigant of the right to trial by jury in cases up to £50 if this section goes through. Of course, that is true; but I wonder how many people here, including Deputy Costello, ever heard of a jury being demanded in one of these running-down cases in which the amount involved was less than £50.

I certainly never heard of a jury being demanded in actions of that kind.

Suppose your reputation was involved?

I do not know how one's reputation is involved in a running-down action. Perhaps the Deputy does.

Or in a case of a box in the eye.

At all events, is it not true that as the law stands, not alone in cases of £50 but in cases of up to £300, litigants are deprived of trial by jury when there is an appeal to the High Court against what a jury may decide in the Circuit Court? Another point which I should like Deputies to bear in mind is: how is it that there was no differentiation between contract and tort in the jurisdiction conferred on the Circuit Court? If therewas any good reason for a differentiation between the jurisdiction in contract and tort in the District Court, why was the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court not pared down so that it would conform with this alleged principle that was put into operation in conferring jurisdiction on the District Court? Do not we all know that there is no differentiation between contract and tort in the Circuit Court? Why, therefore, should there be any differentiation between the figures laid down for contract and tort in the District Court? From the point of view of expense, from the point of view of expediency, or from any other viewpoint, I can see no good reason in common sense or in law for a differentiation between contract and tort jurisdiction in the District Court. If it is only a question of £50, I cannot conceive and I doubt very much if Deputy Cowan or any of the other professional Deputies on the opposite side——

What about the nonprofessional Deputies?

I doubt if they can really be serious about this opposition. Of course, it may be that these Deputies are not as accustomed as people like myself are to actions in the District Court on the contract side, actions such as breach of warranty and actions where the Sale of Goods Act arises, which we have very often in the country. Certainly it is my experience and the experience of many of my country colleagues that questions arising under the law of contract with which we have to deal in the District Court, are far more important and entail far longer hearings than any questions of tort which, in the main, are questions of fact. I am satisfied that this amendment in the terms now suggested by the Minister is long overdue. I suggest that if the House examines it impartially, Deputies will not alone be agreeable to the figure mentioned but even to the introduction of higher figures.

Deputy Dillon has mentioned the fact that by increasing the jurisdiction of the District Court we deprive litigants of their right toa jury. I have 23 years' experience of Circuit Court practice and in that experience I have known a jury to be requested only in two civil actions. That is in the entire County Donegal and not in cases in which I was personally involved. In the entire county, a jury has been demanded only in two civil cases in 23 years.

Juries do not get any payment.

They do in these cases.

They are paid on results.

The second point which I would like to make is that one would get the impression from the speech of Deputy Costello that we were trying to increase the jurisdiction in all tort matters in the District Court to £50. We are not. The District Court has no jurisdiction whatever in slander or libel. It has no jurisdiction in crim. con. or copyright. It has no jurisdiction in title actions. All we do is to give an increased jurisdiction in running-down actions.

Assault and the case mentioned by Deputy Moran, breach of warranty. The difference between breach of warranty and breach of contract is very slight.

Is breach of warranty a tort?

Breach of warranty is contract but it could be brought in as misrepresentation. We people practising in the District Court know the difficulty we have been placed in by having to discriminate between contract and tort down through the years. We have brought proceedings for breach of contract but found on going into the details that it was actually a matter of tort and not a breach of contract. I do not think there should be any discrimination at all. Again in a running-down action, in 99 per cent. of the cases in which damages areinvolved, there are preliminary proceedings on the criminal side of the court.

Not necessarily.

I think I can defy contradiction in stating that there are criminal proceedings by the State against one or other of the parties involved in 99 per cent. of the cases and that the detailed evidence has been gone into.

Would that not affect the issue?

Not in my opinion.

The fact that the District Justice had heard the evidence in the criminal prosecution?

No. It would simplify the matter by having both cases in the same court.

It does sometimes affect subsequent action.

Sometimes it does. Again, in cases of trespass, in 99 per cent. of the cases a question of title is raised, and once that is so the jurisdiction of the District Court is ousted. In regard to assault, I suggest that there should be no difficulty in raising the jurisdiction from £10 to £50. The district justice who is capable of giving a decree for £10 is just as capable of giving one for £50. I do not want to labour the matter in regard to expenses, but I do know as a fact that the expenses involved very often exceed the costs and the amount of the decree.

Again Deputy Costello stated that there has been no representations in regard to this increased jurisdiction. I should like to tell the House that the Bar Association of County Donegal, of which I am a member, are 100 per cent. in favour of this increased jurisdiction, and they have instructed me to come in here and support the amendment.

Mr. Boland

I had others besides that. That was not included in the onesI mentioned. I did not know about Donegal.

It is quite true. These are my instructions: that they are 100 per cent. in favour of this amendment and that I should support it.

The Deputy should know that such instructions are absolutely criminal and unlawful.

If all instructions which are criminal and unlawful were proceeded with, I am afraid the Deputy would not be here very often. However, I will leave it at that.

I will read that.

You may have to get it interpreted.

It is a well-known parliamentary rule that to be so instructed is criminal and unlawful.

With great respect, I will take my directions from the Chair and not from the Deputy. If the Chair thinks I am committing a criminal offence, the Chair will deal with it.

Deputy O'Donnell is entitled to speak on the amendment.

I am much obliged for this lecture on parliamentary procedure, but I would much prefer to get it from the Chair. I must tell the House that I have put the question of this proposed jurisdiction between four meetings of constituents of mine. I have explained the advantages and disadvantages of increased jurisdiction for the District Court and requested their views on it, and again I have got 100 per cent. consent to my supporting this amendment.

One hundred per cent.?

One hundred per cent. Once it is explained to the people that I can sue or be sued on their behalf in the District Court, that instead of going 30 miles to the Circuit Court in Letterkenny and bringing professional and other witnesses, they canhave their cases heard in the local District Court they say: "That is what we want." That is my sole reason for supporting the amendment.

I think Deputy O'Donnell finished on this note about bringing professional men down to a District Court rather than to the Circuit Court. In actual fact, there would be more expense in going to the District Court in a particular area than to the Circuit Court. We have had 29 years' experience of the Courts of Justice Act. It has worked reasonably well in those 29 years. There is a proposal in the Bill to make an alteration in the tort jurisdiction from £10 to £25. I consider that that is far enough to go at the present stage. If the public generally are satisfied with the success of the District Courts in dealing with tort matters up to £25 and that justifies the Dáil in increasing the jurisdiction to £50, well and good, we should do it.

I am not worried very much about this idea of expense. We have changed a good deal in the country. The fact that a man has to go ten, 15 or 20 miles to have his case tried does not matter very much. It is an important day in his life. In the ordinary way, he would much prefer to have a case of importance dealt with by a judge that he reads about rather than a particular person that he knows. Our habits have changed. People think nothing of going 50 or 60 miles to a dog race or a football match. My personal experience is that when they have a court case in which they are very interested all their relations and friends are interested in it and they all go there.

And hope to win.

They all hope to win. But they want to have their case heard, not by a court that is overburdened with matters of children not attending school, bicycle cases, cattle wandering cases, or anything else, but by a court specially fixed to hear their case for the day. That is my experience. It may not be the experience of people from the country. I know the importance which litigants attach totheir cases and they are entitled to have their cases dealt with by a judge who will be actuated, not by the size of his list, but by the principles and elements of justice.

That is why I say to the Minister, where every section and every improvement in the Bill is agreed, and where the House has agreed to go from £10 to £25, that that is the ultimate measure of agreement as to tort cases and we should stop there. In other words, let the Minister get the Bill through the House as an agreed measure. It is possible, when we have some years' experience, that I would support Deputy Moran and Deputy O'Donnell in going further, but I think it would be too much of a jump after 29 years' experience of a system that is functioning reasonably well.

When speaking earlier, I mentioned certain figures about the work that is done in the Dublin District Court and the figures were doubted. I said that before the debate ended I would try to verify them. I have phoned the chief clerk of the Dublin District Court and he told me that one court in Dublin on Monday last, between 10.30 a.m. and 1 p.m., dealt with 261 cases; on Tuesday with 270, and on Wednesday with 159; and that that particular justice dealt with 40,000 cases in a year, or an average of 800 in a week.

There is no overtime?

That is in the morning from 10.30. He is punctually on the bench at that time and he is finished well before 1 o'clock; I doubt if he is there at 12.30. I mention that to show the House that, in mentioning the figures, I was talking from my own personal experience, and I have verified them for three days of this week in regard to that court. I have not the same experience of the District Courts in the country, although I do travel around some areas adjacent to Dublin. Anywhere I go I know there is a considerable amount of work to be done, and, if a tort case involving £50 is to be properly heard, it may take one day, two days or three days, if the witnesses are to be properly examinedand cross-examined. There is no machinery, and there could not be any machinery in the District Court for having that dealt with by a district justice.

The hours and places of sitting of the District Courts are fixed by the Department. The district justices are in one place to-day and in some other place the next day. The Department do their best to give them enough sittings in the month. It is proposed now to cut down the number of district justices and to rearrange the District Court areas so that each justice will be able to work five days a week. With the ordinary work he has to do, where will he get the time to deal with an important tort action that might last two or three days? I would strongly advise Deputies who are in favour of the £50 jurisdiction to be satisfied with £25, and I would ask the Minister to put the Bill through as he has brought it so far with the agreement of the House. We have reached agreement to increase the jurisdiction from £10 to £25. To go further is asking the House to disagree on something. We are all agreed to go from £10 to £25. That is the measure of agreement and we should stop there.

I think Deputy Cowan has made a very bad case for an increase in judges' salaries.

In view of the impending commission, will the Minister leave the jurisdiction at £25?

Mr. Boland

I should like to get agreement, but I think it would be impossible. Strong views have been expressed by Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Moran. I think the best way is to have a free vote, if the House will agree. I am not trying to put anything across, but I think that is the only way to deal with the matter if the House will agree. I think it could be settled that way. Personally, I would prefer that it would go to the commission.

This debate—as we all know it happens in the case of most committee debates—has not been attended by the members of the House.Therefore, Deputies are going to come in here bewildered for a division.

Mr. Boland

When they did attend, and when they spoke in the debate, the impression I got was that the majority were in favour of the increased jurisdiction. Deputy Moran asked for even more than is in the amendment. This is a compromise. Both Deputy Moran and DeputyO'Donnell were suggesting a bigger figure than the one I have put down in the amendment. Deputy Moran was not able to be here for the Committee Stage.

And I could not be here, either.

I suggest that the amendment be put. If anyone challenges a division we can have it.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 59; Níl, 14.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Breen, Dan.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • de Valera, Eamon.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Gallagher, Colm.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hession, James M.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Norton, William.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Sheldon, William A. W.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Deering, Mark.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough)
  • McCann, John.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Leary, Johnny.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Moran and O'Donnell; Níl: Deputies Cowan and H.P. Dockrell.
Question declared carried.

The absentees have won.

Amendment No. 8 reported and agreed.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 11, Section 27, line 14, to add the following sub-section:—

(2) Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1946 (No. 16 of 1946) (which relates to the jurisdiction of the District Court in actions for the recovery of goods let under a hire-purchase agreement) ishereby amended by the substitution of "£50" for "£25".

It is consequential on the raising of jurisdiction to £50 provided for in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 11, before Section 28, line 15, to insert a new section as follows:—

In order to remove doubt, it is hereby enacted that the jurisdiction and powers conferred upon the court by the Rent Restrictions Acts, 1946 to 1952, may be exercised by the District Court in all cases of ejectment in which that court has jurisdiction by virtue of the Acts as amended by this Act.

This means that where the rent does not exceed £53, the court will have jurisdiction, regardless of the valuation. The valuation is fixed at £10 now but if the rent does not exceed £53 and the valuation does not exceed £10, the court will have jurisdiction.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 11, Section 30, line 34, to delete "£25" and to insert in lieu thereof "£50."

This is bringing it into line with the earlier one?

Yes, it went from £10 to £15.

Mr. Boland

I had £25 in the Bill and now I am increasing it to £50.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 12:—

In page 11, Schedule, Part I, column 3, to delete "42 and 54" and to insert in lieu thereof "and 42".

This amendment is consequential on the deletion on the Committee Stage of Section 12 of the original Bill in regardto trial by Central Criminal Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 13:—

In page 12, Schedule, Part III, immediately before "No. 25 of 1945" to insert the following:—

“No. 21 of 1937.

Court Officers (Amendment) Act, 1937.

The whole Act.”

Before this particular amendment is put, might I mention a matter to the Minister which has arisen quite recently in the hope that he will be able to deal with it in the Seanad? There has been a practice in the District Court for a considerable period that district justices may extend the time for an appeal. I understand that under a decision given by some higher court recently it has been decided that a district justice has no jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal. This is a very simple matter and I think it could be very easily dealt with by the Seanad. District justices have exercised that power for some time and it has proved very convenient and satisfactory.

Mr. Boland

I will do that.

Perhaps the Minister could deal with the question that arises on amendment No. 1 which has been ruled out of order. Would the Minister look into that?

Mr. Boland

I have examined it but it is a very difficult thing to do.

The amount involved is very small and very few people are affected.

Mr. Boland

I cannot promise to do it. I will look into it, but I cannot promise to do it because this matter was decided after lengthy consideration.

Amendment put and agreed to.

The Minister said he would consider the point raised by Deputy O'Higgins.

Mr. Boland

On that matter, I wrote to Deputy O'Higgins and told him I did not propose to bring in an amendment but that, if he wished, he could introduce an amendment. I pointed out that this matter could be considered by the committee. So far I have got no reply to that letter. We gave Deputy O'Higgins plenty of time to table an amendment on the Report Stage, if he so desired, but since he has not done so I take it he is satisfied to let the matter go before the committee.

So long as it is considered in that way we are satisfied. The Minister appreciates that as things stand at present the verdict of a jury in the Circuit Court can be upset by a High Court judge on circuit. I think the best way to deal with the situation would be to adopt the procedure that exists in relation to verdicts in the High Court which come before the Supreme Court. The verdict of the jury in that case stands unless there is a misdirection or unless it is contrary to all sense, so to speak.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

On the Fifth Stage, can the Minister say when he expects to establish the committee?

Mr. Boland

I promise to do that as soon as I get the Bill. So soon as the Bill is passed, I will bring the matter up.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share