I was dealing with the matter raised by Deputies Moran, O'Donnell and MacBride in regard to a possible increase in the jurisdiction of the District Court not provided for in this Bill. As I understand it, it has been suggested that the District Court should have jurisdiction in title. That is a proposition that has been suggested for a number of years, and as I said before, I have no very definite views one way or the other. If it were done, it would be necessary to make the District Court a court of record, and certain consequences might follow from that. Speaking about the Circuit Courts in the country areas, I do not think that the costs of title cases areextreme. I can see, of course, that if arrears now accumulate, as a result of a reduction in the number of Circuit Court judges, that, possibly, the position may be different, but at the moment I cannot see any sound reason why the jurisdiction of the District Court in relation to title should be changed.
There is only one other suggestion that I would like to make with regard to the Bill itself. I think Deputy MacBride, in questioning the extent of the increase in jurisdiction proposed for the Circuit Court, mentioned the fact that, by increasing the jurisdiction of that court to £600, that, in effect, the poorer litigant who had a claim for damages over £300 and under £600, would be deprived of his right to a trial by jury. I think that is so, but I do not see any reason why that difficulty should not now be tackled. I would like to see the trial by jury of civil actions in the Circuit Court given some realism. At the moment, as Deputy MacBride has said, civil juries are not availed of by many litigants in the Circuit Court because, when their case is decided by a jury, there is an appeal, which is a rehearing, to the High Court judge who happens to come down as the High Court on circuit to that particular town. That judge rehears the entire evidence that has been tendered before the jury and then gives his own decision on that evidence.
For that reason, since the Courts of Justice Act of 1936, litigants have more or less discontinued the practice of having their cases tried by a jury in the Circuit Court. In the 12 years prior to 1936, it was quite a common thing to see jury actions tried by the Circuit Court—that is claims for damages tried by a civil jury. Up to 1936, the finding of the Circuit Court judge and jury was a final finding unless, in fact, the trial had been a mis-trial, or if the Circuit Court judge had gone wrong on some question of law. Then there was an appeal to the High Court, not on the evidence but on the conduct of the trial or some question of law.
Personally, I would suggest to the Minister that now that we are endeavouring to give the Circuit Court more or less the same jurisdiction that it had in 1924, we should seriously consider providing that, where a case in the Circuit Court is tried by a civil jury, there should be no rehearing on appeal to the High Court—that the only appeal from the jury's findings in the Circuit Court should be an appeal with regard to a mis-trial or on some question of law. If that were done litigants who desire to have their cases tried by a jury in the Circuit Court would have available to them, in their own area, a jury in their own court able to try the case. I appreciate that the question of giving jury actions that reality in the Circuit Court might involve serious consequences.
I am conscious, with regard to juries, that it is an irksome burden that people have to bear in relation to their service as jurors. I have no doubt that is a matter that may be dealt with in the near future. I do think it is not right substantially to increase the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and still maintain the absurd situation whereby the jury's verdict in the Circuit Court can be set aside on appeal on a rehearing of the same evidence by a judge of the High Court on circuit.
I would also like to refer to the suggestion made by Deputy McGrath with regard to the High Court having original jurisdiction sitting in Cork. It is true to say that for some years back the suggestion of a High Court in Cork has been mooted by the Cork Bar, by Cork business people and by Cork Deputies. Deputy Lynch, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, who suggested it here in this discussion has, for the last two years, been in a position to influence the Minister. I understand that, when this Bill was originally drafted, it contained a provision for a High Court in Cork. I do not know what the difficulty has been, or whether, in fact, those who have been suggesting this provision have changed their minds; but, with Deputy MacBride, I agree that if there is to be a High Court, apart from one sittingin Dublin, it should not be confined to the City of Cork. If we are going to concede the idea of having a permanent High Court judge assigned to areas outside the capital, I cannot see why it should be confined to the City of Cork. Galway, Limerick and Sligo command a very large area of litigation in their immediate surroundings. It is a matter that should be considered not in relation to any particular city but in relation to the country generally.
I should like to avail of this opportunity to mention one particular case, the facts of which I have already brought to the notice of the Minister. The Bill provides for an increase in salaries for judges and district justices. It does not contain any provision with regard to salary, pay and allowances of county registrars or Circuit Court and District Court officials, who will have to meet much of the extra work occasioned by this Bill. I am not sure what the present position of Circuit Court officials is, but for many years they were not established civil servants and were more or less the forgotten children. Possibly it may not be necessary to do it by statute, but I do not know why some provision is not made in this Bill for an improvement in their establishment and their salary. The same applies to country registrars and District Court clerks. I should like to hear the Minister's views on that.
I also brought to the Minister the case of a particular former county registrar who served as State solicitor for a number of years in County Laois, who was then appointed county registrar and who served six years in that position. On reaching the retiring age his service as county registrar was not continued. He was retired under the age limit. This particular solicitor's service as county registrar for slightly more than six years failed to qualify him for a pension. He is now in his eighty-fourth year and has continued to practise as a solicitor, meeting great difficulties by reason of his age. I suggest to the Minister that the case of this former officer of the courts who, in fact, had nine years in the public service, if his services as State solicitorbe included, should be covered by some provision in this Bill so as to provide him with a pension which he undoubtedly has earned.
These, Sir, are the only matters I want to raise on the Bill. As I said in the beginning, we all on this side of the House, particularly those of us who, as lawyers, are interested in social reform and social questions of that kind, naturally have different views with regard to this Bill. Many of the points of detail that I should like to mention can be covered by amendments on the Committee Stage. I know that the Minister brings to the discussion of the Bill a measure of goodwill. I am certain that he is anxious to meet reasonable suggestions made from any side of the House. On Committee Stage, suggestions can be made in more detail but, certainly, from my point of view, I agree with the principle contained in the Bill while I differ from the Minister in certain matters of detail.