Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1929 > Committee on the Courts of Justice Act 1924 and the Civil Jurisdiction of the Courts > Report - Courts of Justice Act 1924 and the civil jurisdiction of the Courts

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 19adh Mí na Nodlag, 1929.

(Thursday, 19th December, 1929.)

The Joint Committee sat at 3 p.m.

DEPUTY MORRISSEY in the Chair.

Mr. Patrick Lynch, K.C., called, and examined.

1. Chairman.—When were you called to the Bar, Mr. Lynch?—In the year 1888.

2. And you took silk in?—1906.

3. You were one of the four Commissioners appointed to hear appeals from the Circuit Courts under the Circuit Court Appeals Act, 1927?—That is so.

4. In what month did you take up office?—April, 1927.

5. When was the work finished?—In November, 1927.

6. You observed the ordinary vacation? —We did not sit during the Long Vacation. We did not sit during August or September or the first week of October, but, with the exception of these periods, we were sitting all the time.

7. The Commissioners sat in pairs?— Yes.

8. Could you give a rough estimate as to the number of appeals that were disposed of by the four Commissioners?—I should say between 600 and 700. The approximate number would be about 650.

9. Did the Commissioners clear off all the arrears?—So we were led to believe, and I believe we did.

10. Your jurisdiction ceased when all the arrears were disposed of?—We were appointed by Statute to deal with the arrears that existed up to the time of the passing of the Act, and our jurisdiction ceased once we had dealt with those.

11. Were the appeals taken according to any particular system?—I think we dealt with them in chronological order.

We took those that were standing longest awaiting hearing first and proceeded through the list. Of course, we could not make that the invariable rule. There were occasional exceptions for particular reasons, but that was the general rule we adopted.

12. I take it, then, there was no question of certain types of cases being taken in advance of others?—No.

13. You took them as they came?—Yes.

14. How far back did the oldest appeal case that you dealt with go?—On that I shall have to speak from memory, but, subject to correction, I think that we dealt with some appeals that were at least two years old.

15. The appeals that you dealt with were heard and determined on the report of the official stenographer?—Altogether, except in a few cases, during the hearing of which we thought it necessary to send for witnesses. That had been previously done by the High Court when they were hearing some appeals. In a couple of cases, we felt that was necessary, and we brought the witnesses up to hear them. If the Committee wish, I will explain why we did that. One particular case that I have in mind was a case where my colleague and myself came to the conclusion that the case was tried on an entirely erroneous basis in the Circuit Court; that some particular outstanding fact which we considered, in trying the case, should determine it had not been accentuated or dealt with at all. We decided to have the witnesses brought before us. The case was heard and dealt with by us and as we anticipated, it turned—at all events, in our estimation— upon a document which was in existence within a distance of fifty yards of the Circuit Court, and which had never been produced in the Circuit Court. We thought that this document, which had been written at the time of a particular contract, was one which would have a determining effect on the contract and the terms of it, and that it should have been produced. We wanted to have that document, and we wanted to have the parties, so we had them before us prior to deciding the case.

16. The Court may admit additional evidence, either oral or on affidavit, outside the stenographers’ notes?—Yes.

17. And may re-hear the evidence of witnesses whose evidence is contained in such report?—Yes.

18. Can you give the number of cases in which that was done within your own experience?—So far as I recollect, we had witnesses up in about 10 or 12 cases. As regards affidavit cases only, I can recall but one. It was a case that came up firstly on appeal to the High Court. It had been sent back to the Circuit Court for reconsideration upon certain terms. The Circuit Court Judge affirmed himself again, and it came before us on the second occasion. We did not see the use of sending it back a second time, and in order to ascertain the amount of the judgment we wanted evidence by affidavit or otherwise. Although we invited evidence, we never got it. When we did not get it, we had to go through the notes and make the best estimate that we could as to what would be just as between the parties. That is the only case that I think we dealt with by affidavit.

19. Will you please state your experience with regard to the stenographers’ notes—as to whether, generally speaking, they were satisfactory or unsatisfactory? —As notes, I should say they were accurate. I have no reason to suggest for a moment that the note in any case was not an accurate reproduction of the evidence given in the Court. I never heard any serious criticism to the opposite effect. Generally speaking, it may be taken that the stenographer’s note was beyond criticism. I would say so.

20. May we take it that generally the Appellate Tribunal accepted the findings of the Circuit Court as to facts, and decided only questions of law?—As regards that, there was a standing argument that was always advanced to us when we were sitting as Commissioners: that we should not disturb the findings of fact because the learned Circuit Court Judge saw and heard the witnesses. There was also the legal argument frequently addressed to us, that the Appellate Tribunal should not disturb the finding of fact in the Court below, as we had no opportunity of seeing the witnesses, except we had grave reason for doing so. Of course, if it was a case where upon the notes we saw anything upon which we could guide ourselves on questions of fact, then it would make a difference; otherwise we always adhered firmly to his decision. It was not a universal rule with us. I may say, by way of explanation, the reason why it was not a universal rule with us was, that the Statute gave an appeal on fact and on law, and we considered that, as we were sitting as an Appellate Tribunal, we should try the facts as well as the law ourselves as well as we could, and that if, in trying the facts and analysing them, we came to the conclusion that the learned Circuit Court Judge misdirected himself, so to speak, and came to a wrong conclusion upon the facts, we always gave effect to that in our decisions, because we thought we were bound to do it in accordance with the Act of the Oireachtas. Speaking for myself and my colleague, that is what we did.

21. What steps, if any, did the Commissioners take to ascertain whether the Circuit Judge had before him all the facts?—Of course, when you are a long time at this profession of ours, it sometimes is pretty obvious that there is a material fact in the hearing of a case to which that amount of attention was not directed that, in your opinion, might have been directed to it. If that result appeared to you from reading the whole note, of course you had to try and get the facts as we did in 10 or 12 cases, and get the witnesses up. I would like to say this, by way of comment, upon the hearing of the appeals. The note of the evidence is quite all right as a reproduction of what occurred in the Circuit but frequently it may happen that because the parties or their solicitors know a place or a thing so well—for instance, the exact locus in quo—there is no evidence in the note about it. They may not prove a map that would be of assistance to the Appellate Tribunal, or they may not prove the physical configuration of a place where an accident took place because the parties know it. In that way, the note comes up with imperfect information, and therefore you are handicapped in dealing with a case of that sort on appeal when you have to rely merely on the notes of evidence which omit to emphasise a material fact.

22. Could you give an estimate as to the number of cases in which, having to go into questions of fact, you differed from the Circuit Judge—that is, apart from legal questions?—Speaking from recollection, that is a very difficult thing to say. I would say that in probably 20 or 25 per cent. of the cases we differed from him on questions of fact—in some cases more than in others.

23. Senator Brown.—Was that on the question of fact itself or on an inference to be drawn from the fact?—On the inference to be drawn from the fact rather than the fact. I take as an illustration of what I mean the kind of appeals we frequently have before us referring to a person claiming compensation for what is called malicious or criminal destruction of his property by fire or otherwise. We sometimes differed in a very emphatic way from some of the conclusions Circuit Court Judges used to draw from the evidence before them as to whether there was a prima facie case or not.

24. Chairman.—Do you consider that the hearing of appeals on the stenographers’ reports occupies a longer time than the hearing of appeals with witnesses?—They are much slower. I was all my life on circuit, from the time I was called to the Bar until the old circuit system fell away in 1920. I was in every town in the circuit during that time. I venture to express the opinion that cases were never better presented than they were in the Civil Bill appeals by the advocates engaged in them. The cases were rarely better heard than they were then by the judges. If I might be pardoned for using the expression from something entirely different to what is under consideration by the Committee, the pace was very fast in the Civil Bill appeals. You wanted to be a really expert advocate to handle a Civil Bill appeal. The pace was very fast, and the efficiency of a very high order, in my humble judgment. Even in cases of importance from the point of view of the amount or the question involved, it was customary, I think, for judges who heard cases well, and there were a great many, to hear at least eight or nine appeals in a day, having the witnesses before them. You cannot do that on notes. It would be quite impossible to do more than an average of three in a day. Some of the cases in these appeals on notes occupy a day or two or more, so I think the old system was much more rapid and much more efficient, and it certainly was much better for the tribunal to have the hearing of evidence before the tribunal itself.

25. Apart from the question of time, is there a saving of cost to litigants by having the evidence produced from the shorthand notes instead of bringing witnesses up to Dublin?—That is a question I would prefer somebody with more precise knowledge to answer, but I hazard the opinion that there is no saving in expense to have an appeal by notes. There has to be a copy got first from the official stenographer, which has to be paid for, and the amount to be paid would depend upon the length of the notes. There has to be at least three other copies, and there may be four or five copies made— two for the Court, one for counsel, and two if there are two counsel, and one for the solicitors. That means money, but as for the precise cost, I would prefer to leave that to somebody better able to speak upon it than I am.

26. You think the present system seriously delays the hearing of Circuit Court appeals?—Yes.

27. If there was a general hearing on fact as well as on law there would be still greater delay, generally speaking?— Yes.

28. Is the business of the High Court seriously interfered with by the Circuit Court appeals waiting to be heard?— Before coming to that, I would like to emphasise one matter connected with the present system of hearing appeals. I think it is almost impossible for an appellate tribunal to deal with the question of fact upon notes. It is extremely difficult for an appellate tribunal to say, “I do not believe the evidence of a particular witness,” whose evidence he has before him only on notes. You feel that you might be doing an injustice to somebody who has been regarded as trustworthy by the tribunal which saw and heard him. Therefore, I quite appreciate the difficulty and reluctance of an appellate tribunal in regard to reversing, on a question of fact, a finding of a judge of first instance on the credibility of a witness whose evidence he has heard and whose demeanour he has had the opportunity of observing. I think if you give an appeal upon a question of fact at all you ought to give the Appellate Tribunal the opportunity of seeing the people and of studying their demeanour whilst giving evidence. As to whether the business of the High Court is retarded by Circuit appeals, it apparently is. I speak with some diffidence about that, for I suppose people will never anticipate things occurring. First, there was an accumulation of appeals in 1927. I do not know how they stand now, but frequently four of our judges are taken away for hearing appeals. We miss them very much, for we would much prefer to have them hearing what we call High Court business. In that way, the business of the High Court is retarded.

29. What would you suggest as a substitute for the present system?—I would respectfully suggest that the best way of dealing with the question is to abolish appeal on notes and to give appeal to the judges who would both hear and see witnesses.

30. Will you tell us what bearing, in your opinion, the question of the jurisdiction of Circuit Court judges has on the number of appeals and their character?— The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is a very serious one, and one upon which I do not wish to say much, because I understood it was the subject-matter of consideration by a Committee of the Dáil and Seanad.

Deputy Rice.—That was the Committee on the Circuit Court Rules.

Witness.—I have not seen their report, but I understood they made some observations on the subject of jurisdiction.

Chairman.—It is open to this Committee to deal with any matter of that character.

Witness.—I understand that, but as a matter of deference and respect to the Committee which considered the question I would not like to express any opinion on it.

Senator Dowdall.—We are largely the same Committee.

31. Chairman.—Will you give the Committee your views, Mr. Lynch?—On the question of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, my opinion is that it is too large and should be curtailed. I wish to put before the Committee the reasons I have for coming to that conclusion. In the first place, under the present system judgments for £300, or for any amount over, if the parties consent to the jurisdiction, may be given by the Circuit Court. As far as I know, there is no machinery by which a person who is anxious to know the financial position of a party would be able in any reasonable time to find out whether there were any judgments against such party. There is a central office for registering judgments in the High Court. If there can be judgments given for £300, or for any amount over, the parties consenting to the jurisdiction, in any of the twenty-six counties, without some centralised method of registering judgements, there is, I consider, a fatal blot on the system. In the next place, I think the jurisdiction is too large, because, in my opinion, a case involving issues of such importance as come at present within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court should not be dealt with by a tribunal accustomed to deal with cases of comparatively much less importance in their result to the parties. Might I explain what I mean by that? Take a court that is occupied all the forenoon and perhaps portion of the afternoon in the trial of cases of, say, from £30 to £50, outside the jurisdiction of the Court—

Senator Brown.—£25.

Witness.—£25. Take that court being suddenly called upon in the afternoon to hear a case involving £300; with all due respect to the tribunal, I think that is hardly a proper way of treating a case of such importance. It would be like sending to the District Court a case involving some hundreds of pounds. People are not prepared for that—neither the advocates who appear nor, I think, the Court. This arises rather incidentally to what I have been saying. In a case involving £300 to the parties it is only fair that the tribunal should receive the assistance of those who appear before it, with reference to authorities, if there be any law involved in the case. It is impossible, I suggest, for a barrister or a solicitor attending Circuit Courts to be up-to-date, if I might use the expression, as regards legal decisions, and even if he is up-to-date, he has no access to the authorities to which he may wish to refer the Court. Therefore, I think that the machinery is unsuitable. Now I come on to another reason. When you have a court hearing a case involving £300 interpolated in the hearing of a number of other cases, a case of such magnitude may stop the whole business of the Court. That is hardly fair to people who have small cases and who may have come long distances. In other words, it clogs the machinery of the Court to have it encumbered with the hearing of very serious cases. A further matter that has occurred to me is this: Cases of £300 in their result to the parties are matters of very great magnitude in this country; they are of such magnitude to the people of this country that a person who is defeated is almost certain to appeal if he is a defendant, and if he appeals it puts the creditor away for a very considerable time from the prospect of realising his judgment. Take a creditor in England who gives a man in this country £300 credit, sues him in the Circuit Court and gets judgment for his £300. If the defendant appeals, that man may have to wait for a year or two until his case is heard on appeal. Of course, if he is a very solvent and a very honest person, the defendant may be there at the end of the two years and he may be able to pay the amount, but it is quite possible he may not. Therefore, I think that the giving of such large jurisdiction to the Circuit Court is rather destructive to the credit of the country on account of the delay that follows in consequence of it, or if it is not destructive, it is at least very injurious.

32 Senator Brown.—There is an appeal on fact at present?—Yes.

33. The two judges, or the two commissioners, who hear a case on appeal have no right to differ from the Circuit Judge as to any particular finding of fact?—That is so.

34. They can differ from him on the proper inferences that can be drawn from these facts?—That is right.

35. Is not that practically a rule of practice now in deciding cases?—Yes.

36. That is, they have applied the old rule of appeal, from a judge without a jury in an application for a new trial, to the Circuit Court appeals?—Yes.

37. Therefore, you have now practically no real appeal on fact?—That is my view.

38. I think that was raised in the case of Lewin v. Minister for Finance?*— That is right.

39. In your opinion can a case that involves any difficult or serious question of law be adequately dealt with in the Circuit Court at present?—Well, of course, if it is a big question——

40. If it is a question of elementary law it is all right, but I am talking of the case where the law is seriously arguable. Can that be properly dealt with in the Circuit Court at present?— In my judgment it cannot.

41. I take it that you have had no experience personally of actual Circuit Court practice?—Very little.

42. Is there anything in the nature of a Circuit Court library that you know of?—Not that I know of.

Senator Dowdall.—There is in Cork.

Witness.—There always was one in Cork, even before the Circuit Court system.

Deputy Wolfe.—Yes, the same one as is there now.

43 Senator Brown.—And, of course, in the old days of Civil Bill appeals to the Assizes, the Circuits brought round their own libraries. Each circuit had quite an adequate library, and it used to be taken around in a big box, so that there was a condition of affairs that does not exist at present?—That is so. Barristers do not bring a library around with them.

44. They could not do it?—They could not.

45. You have told us that the present system of hearing appeals, as far as cases per day go, is very much slower than the old Civil Bill appeal?—Very much slower.

46. That it would figure out at something like three cases a day?—I think that would be fair—the outside figure.

47. And under the old system, one day with another, it would probably run up to eight or ten?—That would be about right.

48. I think we used to fix the circuit time-table by dividing the number of appeals that were likely to come on by about ten?—Yes.

Senator Brown.—And we never had arrears.

49. Senator Comyn.—Why do you suggest two judges instead of one for the hearing of the oral appeal? The old system was that the appeal was heard by one judge?—Well, if you are thinking of a final appeal, perhaps it would be better to have two. It would be slower, no doubt, but I think it would be more satisfactory, because human nature is so fallible that in the case of one judge people might say: “Well, he is very unsatisfactory,” but he would be less likely to be so exposed to criticism if he were sitting with a balancing influence. I think two would be better.

50. Have you any idea of what was the average cost of the appeals you heard?—No, I could not give an idea of that, but I can tell you that there were some appeals heard before us, the cost of which on each side ran into nearly £100. I have in mind one case that went on for three days. There were three counsel on one side and two on the other, and that must have cost at least £100 on each side.

51. So that a man suing on a Civil Bill for a small sum had to face the prospect of having to bear costs amounting to over £100?—I would not say that that was the general rule. That was an exceptional case; but these cases were very much more expensive than the hearing of the County Court appeal, which, at the outside, excluding witnesses’ expenses, cost rarely more than £10. Of course, witnesses’ expenses might run into a very large figure if you had a number of witnesses, because a judge might give a witness £5 if he came from Dublin or from across Channel. But I think a Civil Bill appeal rarely cost more than £10 to the defeated party.

Senator Brown.—That is right.

Witness.—I mean as to costs. It was all regulated by a schedule.

52. Senator Comyn.—Is it your opinion that the oral appeal was more satisfactory, from the point of view of the parties, than the appeal on notes?— There is no question at all about that, because, in the first place, they heard their case being tried, they heard the decision, and they heard the reasons given for it. I do not say that people were always satisfied when there was a decision again them, but at all events they understood why it was that the tribunal was against them. But under the present system it is difficult to explain to a man in the country, if he has got a judgment a year and a half ago, that it was reversed or set aside in Dublin, without his having been told beforehand that it was to be heard. It is not calculated to increase confidence on the part of the people in the administration of the law.

53. There are returns before the Committee which seem to indicate that where, in circuits, appeals were numerous the amount of business has decreased, has almost vanished. Does the fact that a person, when he issues a Civil Bill for a small debt, has to face the prospect of an appeal to the High Court and an ultimate hearing in the Supreme Court, in the ordinary case deter him from seeking his legal rights at all?—I am afraid that it does. I am afraid it keeps him out of the courts, that he adopts some other means of getting redress, either by arbitration or otherwise.

54. Senator Dowdall.—Or by letting it go by default?—That may happen, too, of course.

55. Senator Brown.—That applies to an appeal on the stenographer’s notes?—Yes

56. Senator Comyn.—That does not apply at all in the case of an oral appeal? —Oh, no, because that was very rapid, I mean to say that the greatest delay in hearing an appeal would be two or three months or perhaps four months. Sometimes the Civil Bill might be heard in June and the appeal might be heard in July, The longest a person had to wait was from October to March.

57. Reverting to the question of the oral appeal by two judges, do you think your difficulty could be met if two judges went out together and heard appeals separately, and in case there was any difficulty, had an opportunity of consulting with each other?—Possibly that might be a solution, but I do not think that that would be quite a satisfactory way. My view is that the Circuit Court, having regard to its extended jurisdiction in a great many matters which I have not touched upon and do not intend to touch upon—I only touched upon its jurisdiction in actions of contract and actions of tort; I do not intend to deal with its jurisdiction in other matters, and it is very extensive in some other matters—I think if there is an appeal in a case which might possibly be heard in the Circuit Court on the equity side involving thousands of pounds, it would be worthy of the attention of two judges, if you wanted people to have confidence in the administration of the law by the courts.

58. Do you think it would be advisable that Circuit Judges should be changed from circuit to circuit, say, every two, three or four years?

Witness.—Does that arise under the terms of reference?

Chairman.—I suppose it does.

Witness.—It is a very delicate matter. The person most embarrassed, I imagine, having lived in the same place for some time, would be the Circuit Judge himself, because if you are fixed in a place you would, in the ordinary course of events, make friendships with people. It is extremely embarrassing when you have to sit and hear cases where some of your friends are litigants, or even witnesses. It is difficult for the Circuit Judge.

59. Senator Dowdall.—That always arose. You have, no doubt, cross-examined some of your friends before now?—Yes, that is done in the course of business.

Chairman.—Of course, the authorities always thought it desirable to remove members of the R.I.C. or of the Gárda Síochána after some years.

60. Senator Comyn.—You think it would be desirable, if feasible, that where judges have been on a particular circuit for some time, they should be given the option of changing to another circuit?—That matter is very delicate, and I speak with great diffidence on it. I prefer to leave that, if I may respectfully say so, to the Circuit Judges themselves. If they experience any difficulty about it, of course, their wishes should be respected. I would not like to say anything on the matter.

61. The more delicate it is the nearer it goes to the nerve?—Do not take me as refusing to answer. I think it is rather difficult to answer. It is a matter on which the opinion of Circuit Judges themselves should be taken.

62. Deputy Rice.—You have been asked a question as to whether there should be an appeal to two judges or one from the Circuit Court. The system would be that if they differed the decree of the Circuit Court would stand?—The present system.

63. If you have two judges, whether under the present system or a viva voce examination, the decision, if they differ, will stand?—Yes.

64. So you have this advantage, if you have an appeal to two judges instead of one, you will have at least two minds as against one?—Yes.

65. In the next place, you have the decision of the Circuit Judge on one side, and you may have a still more satisfactory result from the point of view of the litigant in that you may have three minds the same way, whereas if you have an appeal to one Judge only on a question of fact, and if he differs from the Circuit Judge, you have the position that you have one mind only?—Yes.

66. Is it not a great advantage from the point of view of the litigant to have two judges on appeal instead of one?— Yes.

67. On the question of delay from the primary to the High Court under the present system, is it the fact that under the old system you had, except in the Hilary term—the one into which March came, and the Trinity term in which July came—High Court Judges available for the trial of jury actions the whole year round, leaving out these two months and vacations?—Yes.

68. Under the present system, you have a very small part of the term available for the trial of these highly important cases, owing to the fact that the judges are taken up hearing appeals on notes?— Yes.

69. Is it true that in some terms recently, for instance the present term, there were only a couple of weeks available for jury cases, instead of up to the 12th October?—That is so.

70. I think you said you were not conversant with the actual facts about the arrears of appeals. Are you aware that appeals now being heard are eighteen months old; that the Courts at present are occupied hearing appeals from decrees given in May, 1928?—I believe so.

71. Are you aware that a special effort was made since the beginning of this term to clear off these arrears of appeals? —I do not know anything about that.

72. You have been asked a question as to the cost of appeals under the present system, and the cost under the old system. There is one part in which you will be able to give assistance on the question of costs. Am I right in saying that under the old system of appeal the leaders of the Bar were available for a fee of two guineas, and in important cases three guineas?—Yes.

Deputy Rice.—I am speaking of the circuit I know particularly, the North-east Circuit, where the ordinary fee for a senior was £2 2s. 0d.

Senator Brown.—It was the minimum fee, and in a small case the maximum.

Deputy Wolfe.—Three guineas.

Senator Brown.—It was very rarely that it went to five guineas.

73. Deputy Rice.—Are you aware that it is a common course, when there are important cases in the Circuit Court, to bring down senior counsel and to give from twenty-five to thirty guineas?— Yes.

74. And when there are appeals from the Circuit Court, does counsel get the same fee as was given in the court below? —It is not unusual to have two counsel in the Circuit Court. I can speak of one case that I know of, where a question of a right of way to a small wood in a southern county was concerned. It was heard first in the Circuit Court and was then tried before two judges of the High Court. Then, I think, it went to the Appeal Court, where it was heard about two years after the primary hearing. When it was announced in the district that the decision of the Circuit Judge had been reversed, the people could not, and did not, believe it. It certainly created consternation and a good deal of trouble in the place. Everybody in the county where it happened knew all about it, and must have known what it cost. It was about a right-of-way to a little wood, the intrinsic value involved being, I suppose, a couple of pounds. I dare say it cost £100 or £200.

75. There is just one other matter which has not arisen before, but having regard to your great experience, I think you would be able to assist us. It has sometimes been said in favour of the present system of appeal that it has this advantage over the old system, that under the old system a false case was made on appeal and there was no record there to check it. Personally, I think that is greatly exaggerated, but so far as it exists, do you think it might be dealt with in this way: that the shorthand writer should be available to take the evidence of any witness or witnesses of either party to the litigation?—Of course that might be done, but speaking from experience, I would say that the making of a false case on appeal, entirely different from the case in the first instance, was very rare. I speak subject to the judgment of the members of the Committee, who have great experience. It is far more likely that a false case was made in the primary tribunal than when the appeal took place, owing to the false case having taken the other party by surprise. The making of a false case on appeal, from a very protracted experience, was, I think, a very rare exception.

76. Senator Comyn.—I suppose the success of a false case was rare?—Almost impossible. You have to assume, in order that it would succeed, that the advocate who appeared in the Court below fell asleep, and did not know what was taking place, or else that on the appeal the judge was somnolent on the occasion.

77. Deputy Rice.—There is just one other matter that I would like to have developed. What you meant by a “false case” in the first instance was with regard to the old County Court system, under which we have been told the parties went into Court without knowing what case would be made by the other side. They had no witnesses there to meet a false case and the result was that appeals had to be tried and the thing set right?—That is right. There is one case that I would like to mention. It was a case where a person got a decree on a promissory note. As there was no defence, the case went by default. Unfortunately, the person who had the promissory note lost it when he went out to lunch. The defendant appealed, stating that he had paid the promissory note, and he produced it in Court. I afterwards saw that gentleman tried in the same town for perjury, and I think he got 18 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. That is the only outstanding case that I can recall.

78. Senator Comyn.—Of a false case being made on appeal?

79. Senator Brown.—If you went back to the system of re-hearing in the country by, say, two judges, that hearing ought to be final?—Certainly.

80. I suppose you would like to retain the right there was under the old Civil Bill procedure of a judge stating a case on appeal on a question of law?—That certainly should be retained.

81. But subject to that the decision should be final?—Yes.

82. If you go back to the system of re-hearing in the country—the old Assize system—you were kept sometimes seven or eight months before the appeal was heard, say from the end of July to the end of March?—That is so.

83. That was a very long time to wait? —Yes.

84. Ought not the sittings of the High Court Judges, if they are to be sent to re-hear cases on appeal, to be fairly continuous? Do you not think that that would be a great advantage?—It would, but you must bear in mind that the interval of time was really only from October to March.

85. Even so, it was six months’ delay as against two or three months’ delay in the spring?—Yes.

86. Senator Hooper.—I understood from you, Mr. Lynch, that when you were a Commissioner you and your colleagues heard between 600 and 650 appeals?— That is right.

87. You yourself would probably have dealt with at least 300?—Yes.

88. And of these you only asked for fresh evidence in 10 or 12 cases?—Yes. I should like to say that asking for fresh evidence and bringing witnesses up again is a rather extreme course. We were reluctant to do it unless it was obvious that we should bring them up to get evidence. We only did it in about a dozen cases.

89. You would not think it right to assume from the small proportion of cases in which you thought it necessary to hear fresh evidence that, generally speaking, the present system of hearing appeals was satisfactory?—No. There were cases in which we considered there had been a mis-trial in the court below, that the real issue was not tried at all owing to some omission to accentuate an important matter that we thought was vital to the case. For the purpose of ascertaining that fact for ourselves, we had the parties up before us.

90. You think then that in the balance of the cases—in 96 per cent. of them— there was the possibility of the presentation of the evidence being unsatisfactory from the judge’s point of view?—It is quite possible. As I said earlier in answer to Senator Brown, in the majority of cases it came to a question of saying whether we accepted A, B or C as credible witnesses. We felt that we had a difficulty about that. It was only when it came to drawing inferences from the facts that we assumed the evidence to be accurate.

91. You have had a good deal of experience yourself appearing on appeals before the ordinary judges, that is, the High Court Judges?—I have been in some.

92. Can you say in what proportion of the cases in which you appeared the High Court Judges asked for fresh evidence?— I know they do ask for fresh evidence. Very early in the hearing of appeals, two judges hearing an appeal from Kerry had to have the witnesses up from Kerry to Dublin. I think it is rather rare for them to do that.

93. That is to say, it is rather rare for the High Court Judges to ask for fresh evidence?—Yes, but they have asked for fresh evidence on a few occasions, I think, by affidavit—such, for instance, as the proving of documents, locus in quo, a map or something of that kind.

94. May we take it that the present system by which those cases of higher jurisdiction are heard in the Circuit Courts deprives the litigants in those Courts of the services of the more trained counsel?—Certainly.

95. That the men of higher standing at the Bar do not travel down to these Courts, whereas they would be available for cases in the High Court?—Even if a man goes down and attends these Courts, and wants to refer to authorities, particularly recent authorities, he has not an opportunity of doing so, because when travelling he does not bring a whole lot of authorities with him.

96. Senator Farren.—You told us that you were appointed one of the Commissioners in April, 1927, and that you finished your work in November, 1927?— That is so.

97. And that during that period the four Commissioners heard about 600 appeals?—Yes. Of course it is right to say that there were, in addition, a number of appeals which apparently died in the meantime. They collapsed or something of that kind and did not come on for hearing.

98. On an average how many cases did you hear per day?—The average would be about three a day.

99. Deputy Little.—Apart from the question of hearing fresh evidence, would you consider it necessary to have an appeal on fact as well as on law?—I think that an appeal on fact is essential, because, apart altogether from the question that no judge is infallible, in a very large percentage of the cases one of the parties might desire an appeal on a question of fact. In the first place, he may not acquiesce in the judge’s conclusions; secondly, the case may have run upon certain assumptions of fact, and, thirdly, apart from assumptions, some particular fact may not have been emphasised in the way that one particular party would wish. Therefore, I consider that we ought to have appeals on questions of fact.

100. Did you find in your experience that your hands were tied from the precedent more or less set for you?—We had a good deal of difficulty in that way.

101. You would have preferred possibly to have gone into the facts in certain cases?—Certainly.

102. Deputy Wolfe.—When you were referring to two judges may I take it that you were referring to two judges sitting locally?—Yes.

103. It has been suggested that the old system was an inducement towards false testimony. You will agree with me, I take it, that if that were so it was a very serious blot on the old system?—Yes.

104. You had experience of the hearing of appeals in four Assize towns?—Yes.

105. And your experience extended over a very long period?—Yes.

106. Am I right in saying that when appearing for an appellant you concentrated on the rock that he had split on in the Court below?—Yes.

107. And if that happened to be a point of law you concentrated on the law?— Yes.

108. If it was a case in which the facts were wrongly decided, you tried to produce additional testimony, and when that was not available, I take it, you asked the judge to take the testimony of your side against the respondent’s?—Yes.

109. Is it your experience that false testimony rarely succeeds?—That is my experience.

110. Is it not more than ever difficult for it to succeed on a second hearing?— Yes.

111. And in nine cases out of ten it does not succeed on first hearing?—Yes.

112. If the appeal from the first hearing is on the notes, does it not follow that it will fail to succeed on the second hearing?—Yes.

113. If the argument that the old system was an inducement to perjury is true, would I be right in suggesting that it might also be an argument the other way?—Yes.

114. And an argument in favour of rehearing?—Yes.

115. Your suggestion of the second judge would be an arguments on the same lines?—Yes.

116. As regards any inducement to per jury, your view, I take it, is that it would be rather under the new system than under the old?—That is so.

117. With regard to the question of the stenographer, leaving out for the moment the question of expense, which will be a matter for officials to deal with later, do you not think that the continuance of the stenographer in the Court below, with an opportunity for either litigant to get a copy of the notes for counsel on appeal, would be an additional safeguard if the expense were not prohibitive?—Certainly.

118. Assuming that jurisdiction in tort was reduced from £300 to £200, how many of the cases do you think which at present are brought to recover £300 damages would go into the High Court? Do you not think that in many of these cases the claims would automatically be reduced to £200?—I think the number that would be tried in the High Court would be very small. At the present time, if you bring an action for tort in the High Court and get £300 damages, I do not think that you get any costs at all. You may get the costs of the Circuit Court hearing, but certainly you will not get High Court costs, so that if it is doubtful whether you will recover £300 or £200, the natural tendency would be to sue in the Circuit Court.

119. Therefore, the effect of a reduction of jurisdiction in tort from £300 to £200, leaving out the exceptional cases, would be that persons at present claiming £300 would in future only seek £200?—I think so.

120. Where important questions of law are involved, are they not more often found in cases of contract?—That is so.

121. You suggested a moment ago, and, of course, it is a fact, that where a foreign creditor or a Dublin creditor succeeds in getting a judgment in the Circuit Court for a large sum and an appeal is lodged, in practice that stays his hand for 18 months?—That is so.

122. At all events, up to the present, where a decree is obtained and an appeal is lodged, it is looked upon as a stay of execution?—I know the impression might be created that it is a stay of execution, and as a consequence of that impression injury is done to our credit.

123. Whether it operates as a stay of execution or not, the creditor is slow to execute his decree until it is affirmed on appeal?—Yes.

124. I think you said you did not like to express an opinion in cases where your judgments went to the Taxing Master?— As far as I can ascertain, they were taxed in some cases by the County Registrar.

125. The costs of your appeals were taxed by the Taxing Master?—That is a matter in which I am not in a position to be of any assistance to the Committee.

126. Deputy Ruttledge.—In regard to the question raised by Senator Brown, in a case of importance where a big question of law is involved, is it not usual for a solicitor acting for a party to send his brief to the counsel engaged in the case? —I think that is usual.

127. In that way counsel would be able to refer to the authorities?—Yes.

128. With regard to big cases, do you know whether the local Bar Association or solicitors meet beforehand to fix a list? —I do not know that. I am sure they would do the best they could to facilitate the machinery.

Senator Brown.—The cases I referred to were ones where junior counsel engaged in cases had not the opportunity of looking up the law.

Witness.—If I might respectively say so, Deputy Ruttledge is quite right. If a brief is sent out, as I am sure it frequently is, counsel is in a position to do what Deputy Ruttledge said.

Senator Brown.—He could bring his own books.

129. Senator Comyn.—Do you think that in an action for damages resulting, say, in a decree for £200, a Circuit Court is a suitable tribunal?—If I may express an opinion, I would prefer that the jurisdiction should be limited to £100.

130. Senator Brown has called your attention to the fact that the Assizes were held only twice a year, that is, in July and March. Do you consider it desirable that appeals should be held in the various counties more frequently?—It would be much better if it could be done, because there is nothing people appreciate more than the speedy dispatch of legal business and finality in such things.

131. Do you think these appeals ought to be heard at stated times, say, in July, November and March?—I think it would be better if there were stated times, so that people could make preparations for appeals and make arrangements for their other cases at the same time. People would always know when they would have to be preparing their appeals.

132. Deputy Little.—Arising out of the point about counsel not having books and being unable to refer to the necessary authorities, did not that also arise when you had the other form of appeals being heard from time to time, when the judges were going out?—I imagine that if you had judges going around hearing appeals that people who practice before them would have preparations made for dealing with important cases.

Senator Brown.—They have a travelling Circuit library.

Witness.—We always had a library, and I imagine the Bar at present would similarly equip themselves.

Chairman.—We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Lynch, for your valuable evidence.

(Witness then withdrew.)

Mr. A. K. Overend, K. C., called, and examined.

133. Chairman.—I understand, Mr. Overend, you were called to the Bar in 1902?—That is so.

134. You took silk in 1920?—Yes.

135. And you had some experience in the County Courts and Assize Courts on the North East Circuit?—I had, but not as great as Mr. Lynch’s. In the early years of my life I practised in the Recorder’s Court, Belfast, and in the County Courts. I went on Assize also, but my experience is not equal to that of Mr. Lynch.

136. I understand you were a member of the Circuit Court Rules Committee?— Yes.

137. And you were one of the four Commissioners appointed to hear appeals under the Circuit Court Appeals Act, 1927?—Yes. With reference to these appeals, I think Mr. Lynch is probably quite accurate, but the Committee may possibly misunderstand an answer that he gave. Speaking from recollection, and I think it is a fairly accurate recollection, the total number of appeals the Commissioners found waiting them when appointed was over 700. I believe the number was 710 or 720. Mr. Lynch said the Commissioners heard between 600 and 700 appeals. I would not at all dispute that, but some of the appeals were withdrawn in the interval and some of them died, as Mr. Lynch has told you. Our sittings commenced early in April and ended, I think, on the 24th November.

138. Chairman.—The actual number of appeals disposed of was, I am informed,* 527?—A certain number was struck out, and there were cases in which it was intimated to the Court that the parties had come to terms, and appeals were withdrawn for one reason or another.

139. Would you give your views of the present system of Circuit Court appeals? —I think the present system of Circuit Court appeals is unsatisfactory. My colleagues and I gave our best attention to it. In a certain number—I will not say a large proportion of cases, but in a fair proportion—we thought that the learned Circuit Court Judge had come to a conclusion on fact different from that which we would have arrived at. At the same time, we did not feel free to alter his decision, because he had seen the witness, the question was one depending on the balance of evidence, and, there being evidence both ways, we were hampered perhaps in coming to a right decision. We had a doubt in our minds because of the note, and we would have come to an opposite conclusion on fact to that which the learned Circuit Court Judge came. In other cases we unhesitatingly reversed his decision, because in our opinion the whole evidence and the material facts were what weighed, and we thought the learned judge attached more importance than was justified to a particular fact and had come to a wrong conclusion on the main facts.

140. Senator Brown.—On the inference drawn from the facts?—Yes. In many cases we were hampered in that way.

141. Chairman.—Where you were hampered on the question of facts and you had strong doubts in the matter, was it not open to you to call for evidence, either oral or by affidavit?—I remember some cases in which we had to call for further evidence. Those were cases in which we thought there was material evidence in existence that was not before the Court. In cases where it appeared from the note that all material witnesses had been before the Court, we did not feel at liberty to call them again. Where we thought there was material evidence that had never been before the Court, we asked for it, but these cases were few. In one case we came to the conclusion there were vital documents that had not come before the Court, and we adjourned the case for the purpose of having these produced.

142. Do you consider that appeals should be by way of re-hearing on oral evidence?—Yes.

143. Would you give your views on that matter, and your views on the present system?—I hold the opinion strongly that speedy and certain justice is of the greatest importance in this country and outside of it, because it has a direct effect on the credit that will be given to merchants and others in the course of their business. If I might mention a case within my own knowledge, I remember the case of a gentleman who had a large general store in the west of Ireland a quarter of a century ago. He used to get large quantities of paint from a firm in England. His account with the firm ran into £300 or £400, and the paint was supplied to him on credit. He supplied his customers in the spring time. About October or November, the English firm became anxious regarding the payment of their bill, but no notice was taken of their requests for payments. Ultimately, a writ was issued. A reply was received by the firm from the gentleman, enclosing a cheque for the amount due and asking if there was anything more to be paid. The firm thought that very polite, but the fact is that he was carrying on his business for the entire year without capital and upon the credit given to him. He had banked the money which he got from his customers and received the interest on deposit. That may be an exceptional case, but the firm gave credit because they knew the moment they issued a writ they could have a judgment of the High Court and prompt execution, or that he would pay the moment he got the writ. It is of great importance people should know they can get speedy justice and they cannot at present in the Circuit Courts.

Another matter is that the appeal on note takes a very much longer time to hear. This was a matter that gave my colleagues and myself considerable anxiety, and we tried in every way that we could to expedite the hearing. In some cases we asked counsel on either side whether it would be possible to refer only to material portions of the shorthand note—to pick the parts that were essential. We found that with the best assistance we could get—and it was very good; it could not have been better—it was quite impossible in any single case to try the case without reading the entire note, because some apparently irrelevant answer might help us as to the estimate we might form of a particular witness’s evidence.

144. Could you tell us exactly why it should take so much longer to decide a case on the stenographer’s notes than by hearing witnesses?—I think the reading of the note aloud takes an immense amount of time. There is another reason. In the old days, when some of the most strong-minded judges were hearing civil bill appeals, for instance, the Lord Chief Baron of Ireland, they took a very short course. A case was called. A decree had been given in the Court below, and the defendant had appealed. When the case started, the Lord Chief Baron asked where was the defendant, and why he did not pay the plaintiff his money. If anything like a satisfactory answer was given the Lord Chief Baron would hear the case at full length, but if there was no answer capable of being given, he disposed of it in a very short manner indeed.

145. Let us take a normal judge?— There is this to be said: In many cases, on the hearing of civil bill appeals by oral evidence, the judges were able to keep the witnesses very closely to the points which they considered relevant, and the time occupied by witnesses and the amount of evidence given by each witness was, I would say, considerably shorter than in the case of the evidence which was taken and which appeared before us on the shorthand note.

146. I am putting this to you not only as Chairman of the Committee but as a layman. I cannot understand why it should take three or four times as long to hear appeals on notes as by witnesses. Is it not natural to assume that the evidence which would be given before an appeal tribunal by witnesses would be almost on a par with the evidence given in the Court below, and that it would probably be given at the same length?— I shall put it to you this way. When a case is being heard in a Court of first instance, especially where there are no pleadings and where one of the parties does not necessarily know the precise case that is going to be made against him, a witness is put into the box, examined and cross-examined, and the taking of his evidence, let us say, occupies an hour altogether. Suppose that case came on upon appeal before the Judge of Assize, counsel on either side had been told in their briefs what had taken place in the Court below, they had a knowledge of what the decision was in the Court below, and they were in a position to form an opinion as to what facts were relevant to the hearing of the appeal. The probability was that upon appeal that party whose evidence had occupied about an hour in the Court below would be asked, in direct examination and in cross-examination, questions that were directly relevant to the point at issue, and the time occupied by him would be considerably shorter than it had been in the Court below, say twenty minutes instead of an hour. In addition, the judge who was hearing the appeal would keep the counsel and the witnesses very closely to the matters that he regarded as relevant. The speed at which these appeals were heard was distinctly high, as Mr. Lynch has told you.

147. May we not assume that in the Circuit Court the judge will also keep counsel and witnesses to what is relevant? —He is in the difficulty that he has no pleadings before him and he does not know at the outset of the case—he could not know until well through the case— what the evidence is going to be.

Senator Brown.—He has to listen to everything first.

Witness.—When the case came on before the Court of Appeal at the old Assizes, there had been what one might call a dress rehearsal; all parties had a very clear idea of what the real case was, and, of course, that enabled the thing to be shortened.

148. Chairman.—I put this question to you, again as a layman. In how far, if at all, do the functions of counsel differ in an appeal on notes as against oral evidence, and how far may counsel’s functions in an appeal on notes delay or expedite the business as against the case where oral evidence is taken?—I do not know that the actual time occupied by counsel would be any greater in the one case than in the other. There is this to be said, that counsel, in addressing a Court on an appeal on notes, has to call the attention of the Court to and emphasise points which in the note he regards as material. The points look more or less the same in type, but there are points which he regards as of great importance, and he tries to stress and emphasise these in a particular way. When the hearing has taken place before a Court, and the Court has seen and heard the witnesses, it may be perfectly obvious to counsel on one side that it is quite unnecessary to stress these points at any length to the Court, because the Court has heard the witnesses and has indicated plainly in some way or other that it has already fully appreciated these points. But apart from that, I do not say that counsel’s addresses in one case or the other differ in length.

149. On the question of jurisdiction, you are of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court should be reduced from £300 to, say, £100, as mentioned by Mr. Lynch?—I would be strongly in favour or reducing it.

150. In what way has the Circuit Court failed in dealing with jurisdiction up to £300?—I would not like to say that the Circuit Court has failed, with the machinery available. But when the Circuit Court Rules Committee were considering the largely increased jurisdiction that was being given to the Circuit Court and were producing a body of rules which was subsequently rejected by the Oireachtas—that great volume of rules which occupied it for the greater part of six months—the question arose as to whether there ought to be pleadings in these larger actions. The Committee, comprising amongst its members two of the most experienced judges in the country in the matter of the County Court practice—namely, the late Judge Doyle and the late Judge Charles Drumgoole, who, both at the Bar and as judges, had very wide experience—were unanimously of the opinion, I think I am right in saying, that when you come to these cases of greater importance, pleadings were valuable in the interests of economy, because you might be bringing witnesses from Cork to Donegal to prove facts which would be admitted if they were pleadings. Pleadings involve a certain amount of Court machinery and more elaborate offices and so forth, and I understand that the reason why the Circuit Court Rules, as framed, were considered inappropriate was that they were, in effect, setting up, in the county offices, machinery which was the machinery of the High Court on a small scale. But if you are to try big cases, you must have machinery. Mr. Lynch has already emphasised that point. Judgment is given in the Circuit Court for £300 or maybe for £1,000, and you must have a very efficient system of judgment registration. There must be the least delay possible in registering judgments in a central office in Dublin. Every county officer must register judgments not only in his own office, but send accurate copies immediately to the central office. Otherwise, it would be impossible for any person in business to find out whether there is a judgment against a particular man in any one of the twenty-six counties. That all involves a great deal of machinery and a great deal of expense. Again, in these cases of greater magnitude, you may require urgent orders to be made in the interval between sittings. There must be some machinery by which that can be done, and the moment you go into the larger jurisdiction—and I suggest £100 as being now somewhat analogous to what £50 was before the War—you must make provision that is suitable and reasonable for the judgment of the larger amount to be properly registered for the protection of parties, and for the enforcement of that judgment. To my mind, that is essential in order that credit may be given. Otherwise, it will not be safe for people to carry on the ordinary commerce of the country; they will not know, when they are dealing with people, whether there are judgments against them or not.

151. Deputy Beckett.—As regards the continuity of a witness’s evidence, a witness who gives evidence in a different court a considerable time afterwards is likely to give that evidence possibly in a different way, possibly in a more correct way. It would be quite a different thing from reading the notes?—I agree, and besides, sometimes one finds on the note an answer that is somewhat ambiguous to the mind of the particular Court reading the note. If the witness is there, sometimes by the mere intonation of his voice, the answer is made plain, or he gets an opportunity of explaining in full what he meant by it.

152. Might it not happen that the reading of a note of my evidence by you would be quite different from the evidence given by me?—I quite agree; it might or it might not.

153. Chairman.—I think you answered one part of my question about the jurisdiction. Can you say where exactly the Circuit Courts have failed in their administration of jurisdiction up to £300? I mean, what exactly was your reason for stating that the jurdiction should be reduced to, say, £100?—Well, first of all, if one looks at the list of circuits, one finds that a particular Circuit Judge, say the Judge of the Eastern Circuit, has five counties to attend to. He has to dispose in the year of all the business which was previously disposed of by five County Court Judges. It is quite obvious, having such a large amount of business to deal with, and having cases involving up to £300, that it is not possible for him to sit in more than a few of the towns that were formerly visited by the County Court Judges. That is one reason. The Court is not so accessible to the people, because the sittings are not held in so many towns now. They cannot be. Another reason is that these cases of larger magnitude necessarily occupy time. A judge fixes the date twelve months beforehand, and decides that he will sit. say, in Wexford on the 14th January, 1931. He allows what he thinks a sufficient time for the business that will be found there to occupy him. He has no means of knowing what business will be there. When he goes to the town he may find a number of larger cases, and he has to try these as quickly as he can, in order to finish his work and get on to the next town. While he is trying the larger cases he has in attendance at his Court a large number of litigants in smaller cases, who, perhaps, are waiting day after day, not knowing when the heavier cases will end. To my mind, all that is unsatisfactory. When you come to questions of law you find extremely difficult questions in the larger cases. One case which came before the Commissioners a few years ago had previously occupied the attention of the House of Lords. Questions of that magnitude are not questions which it is fair to expect the Circuit Judge to decide away from his home, away from his books, with Counsel doing their best, no doubt, before him, but without an opportunity of consulting. The larger cases should certainly be excluded. I hold the view very strongly that they should be excluded from the present jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts. The judges would find more time available than they are now able to give in some towns, business would be done with greater expedition, and the Court would be more accessible to the litigants, because it could be brought nearer home.

154. Chairman.—Could you give any idea as to the amount of time of a Circuit Judge is taken up hearing larger cases— cases over £100?—I could not.

155. Would by far the greater part of his time be taken up hearing cases of less than £100?—I think that undoubtedly would be the case. For that reason it seems not unreasonable that the smaller proportion of the business—and the more important proportion—should be capable of being dealt with in the superior Courts without penalty. At present it cannot. If you bring a Circuit Court case in the High Court you run a great risk of being penalised in costs. May I put an instance to the Committee? Suppose that a firm in Wexford supplies goods to a gentleman in Louth. Both cases are in the same circuit. A debt becomes due for a couple of hundred pounds, say, for agricultural implements or something of that sort. The firm can bring a summons in the High Court, can move for summary judgment, and can obtain judgment in a couple of weeks and get the money. If the firm were driven to the Circuit Court, they might have to wait three months before the case came on for hearing a first time in Co. Louth, because the judge had just finished there and would not be back for another three months. When he does get that far, the case will be subject to appeal, and may be held up for a couple of years. It is perfectly true that a mere notice of appeal does not prevent a litigant acting on the judgment he has got.

156. Senator Brown.—At his own risk?—I do not remember a single case— and I am 27 years in the profession—in which a litigant executed a judgment while an appeal was pending. The risk is too great.

157. Do you agree with Mr. Lynch that a case involving a really difficult question of law cannot be adequately dealt with in the Circuit Court, as a rule? Of course there are cases where you bring down what I call expensive counsel, at a very large fee, and he probably brings authorities with him. In the ordinary case, do you think a really difficult question of law can be argued, and a proper decision given in the Circuit Court?—I am satisfied it cannot. I think it is right to say that the Circuit Judges are men of considerable experience now, and remarkably sound lawyers, but they have not the assistance, and the materials, and they cannot have them. Counsel goes down— very able Counsel—to the Circuit town very often without the remotest information as to the class of case he will get. He is briefed by a solicitor, as he thinks, in fair time. It is found that the case is on next day. The list cannot be settled beforehand as in the other Courts. There is no opportunity of dealing with the matter. Counsel has to do the best he can while on his feet. It is a matter for which no one is to blame. Again, it very often happens that in cases regarded as simple cases, extraordinarily difficult points of law arise in the course of hearing, and counsel on both sides or the solicitors—who are men of experience— argue them as best they can. They have to do so without authorities.

158. You heard a large number of cases as a Commissioner. Can you give us any idea of the proportion of cases in which you reversed the Circuit Judge? What I am coming at is this: the cases in which the Circuit Judges’ decisions were reversed were practically all on questions of law—the great majority?—Practically all.

159. Excepting the cases where the Court drew a wrong inference from the facts?—Yes.

160. Were there many cases of this kind? Were there, say, 300 or 400 cases in which there was reversal?—I could not answer off-hand.

161. We can get these figures?*—It is the case, I would think, that the majority were reversed in the Court of Appeal—a considerable majority. It is only fair to add that those were picked cases. The Circuit Judges heard hundreds and hundreds of cases in which there was no appeal. A certain number of cases are picked by the advisers on either side, in which they have a chance of success on appeal, and out of these picked cases I think we reversed the majority.

162. And that would be, in the great majority of these cases, on a question of law?—It would. In many cases it is quite right and only fair to say that the learned Circuit Court Judge had dealt with the matter off-hand, specifically stating that he felt bound to do it off-hand, without waiting to consult authorities in Dublin, or to postpone the case to the next sessions, because, in the interests of the parties, they ought to have a decision at once, so that if they wished to appeal they should be in a position to do so.

163. Senator Comyn.—The cases in which you reversed the Circuit Judge were cases depending on questions of law, and cases depending on questions of fact in which there was no evidence to support the finding on fact of the Circuit Court Judge?—In the majority of cases, a question of law, and in some cases a question of fact, and where we thought the learned judge had drawn a wrong inference from material facts in evidence.

164. There are also a number of cases in which you felt from reading the note that probably the judge was wrong on the question of fact, and yet you did not feel yourself at liberty to reverse?—There were a number of cases in which we felt we were not free.

165. In the £200 cases coming before the Circuit Judges, where what was described as expensive counsel was brought down, is not the expense of hearing the case in the Circuit Court much greater than it would be if they were heard in the ordinary, appropriate tribunal of the High Court?—I think in very many cases that would be so. Certainly in a very large number of cases the delay caused to the parties, and the expense, would be very much greater. May I put a case to the Committee? A question arises on a contract between a firm in London and a gentleman in Donegal. In the High Court, as a rule, the trial could be fixed specially for a particular day, and in any event it would appear in the Legal Diary. The witness from London could start at 8 o’clock at night and be here at 8 o’clock next morning. The gentleman from Donegal could be here in four or five hours. A day could be fixed, the case disposed of, and both parties could return home the same evening with their witnesses. If that case had to be tried in the Donegal Court, as the Senator pointed out, the witness from London would have to be in Donegal at the commencement of the Sessions. Probably it would not be possible to get a date fixed beforehand for the hearing. He would have to bring all the witnesses, have a two days’ journey, and maybe have to wait two or three days before the case could be heard. I would say that in the majority of cases the High Court would be more expeditious, and much cheaper, in effect, while the remedies for enforcing judgment when obtained would be much greater. Suppose that a judgment is given in favour of a gentleman in Dundalk who has had to bring an action for goods sold and delivered. Assume that the judgment is against a defendant who is a contractor. A week after judgment is given the judge has left County Louth and has taken up Sessions at Wexford. The gentleman who got his decree suddenly finds that a large sum of money is going to be paid to the defendant in County Louth. What is he going to do? If that case were in the High Court, counsel could walk in next morning and ask for a garnishee order, and the debt would be paid at once. In the Circuit Court, there is no such remedy. Is the plaintiff to wait three months until the whole of the money is spent, or is he to try to bring a separate action, or is he to follow the judge to Wexford, and ask him to give a special order there, which, when made, will have to be retransmitted to County Louth, and there enforced some days later, possibly when the defendant has received the money and paid other debts with it?

166. Senator Brown.—Is garnishee possible in the Circuit Court at present?— I do not think it was intended that it should be, and there were difficulties about working it.

167. You would have to follow the Judge?—Yes. But it is only right to point out what that means. In order that a proper application might be made to the Judge in Wexford, either the solicitor or counsel engaged in the case would have to follow the Judge from Dundalk to Wexford. These people would understand the case, or else the solicitor in the County Louth would have to send the entire papers to some gentleman practising in Wexford. For the purpose of making a solitary application, he will have to read and understand the whole facts of the case with which he has no other concern, apply to the judge and then get an order. All that means greatly increased expense. It also means increased work in the county office because there must be inter-communication between the county offices, or else the county officer must follow the judge from the County Louth and go back again.

168. There is power to garnishee?—Yes, but there are no rules for working it out.

169. Senator Comyn.—He would have to follow the judge for the garnishee order?—Yes, and a delay of that kind might prove fatal.

170. Allowing that professional men in the Circuit Courts are very able men, as they frequently are, and that the judges are of course very good lawyers, do you consider that a tribunal which is adapted, say, for trying a thousand small cases, or say, 1,500 small cases, involving amounts of from £25 to £50, is the proper tribunal to try 19 or 20 of these big cases listed in the midst of the small cases?—It can be done, but with the greatest inconvenience to litigants and after causing considerable and unnecessary expense. It is not convenient.

171. Would the fact that there are greater facilities for travelling at the present time make for the advisability of centralising the trial of these large cases? —Undoubtedly. I can give an instance that is within my own knowledge. This happened more than once before the severance. In many cases in the old days litigants in Belfast preferred to get their cases tried in Dublin rather than have them tried at the Assizes in Belfast. They said it was cheaper, quicker and far more convenient, because in Dublin they were tried in the ordinary Courts from day to day. They appeared in the list at 5 o’clock in the evening, and the town agent was able to send a telegram telling the parties to be in Dublin in the morning. They arrived in Dublin in the morning, their case was heard, and they were able to leave for Belfast by the 6 o’clock train in the evening. It cost them, of course, their railway fare from Belfast, but only one day was occupied in the hearing of the case, whereas if the case were tried at the Assizes in Belfast these people would be kept on tenterhooks for, perhaps, a week. They would have to go to Court each day, with the solicitors trying to keep in touch with witnesses, whom they would have to summon by telephone. The result was that the people concerned could not get out into the country to do their ordinary business, and were kept there in waiting for perhaps a week. In many cases in which I was engaged I received express instructions that the venue, which is the technical term, was to be laid in Dublin, because both parties regarded a Dublin trial as much quicker and cheaper than a trial in Belfast, although both parties lived in the city of Belfast. That necessarily applies, to some extent, to the Circuit Courts, because the method of transacting business—in the arrangement of the lists and so forth in the Circuit Court— approximates very closely to the old list at the Assize Courts.

172. Deputy Rice.—I think I may summarise your evidence in this way, that the inefficiency of the Circuit Courts to deal with these important cases is owing to their not having the same machinery as is available in the High Courts?

Witness.—May I respectfully make a suggestion that you would alter the word “inefficiency” to “incapacity”?

173. Very well, to their incapacity? As a result of what I saw, that, in my opinion, is not due to any want of effort either on the part of the judge or his officers. The thing is impossible and cannot be got over.

174. In order to have the same capacity in the Circuit Court, you would really need to have eight branches of the High Court through the country with all the appropriate machinery?—You would need to have twenty-six branches of the High Court. This is a matter that came before the Circuit Court Rules Committee, and a matter that they gave protracted consideration to. You must not treat the circuits as units. You cannot have a unitary officer that will cover the country from Louth to Wexford. The country officer in each county will have to be a separate unit, and the work which those rules, if they had gone through, would have thrown on the Country Officer could hardly, I think I may fairly say, be done by five men.

175. The Chairman asked you about the long delay that takes place in the hearing of appeals under the present system. I would like to deal with that under two heads. In the hearing in the Court below, a great deal of matter which may not be relevant is necessarily included in the evidence by the advocates appearing because otherwise they may think they would miss something which may appear relevant on appeal?—Yes, and they have no pleadings to guide them.

176. So you may have many hundreds of questions and answers recorded through no fault of the advocate when the relevant matter could be dealt with in one tenth of that number of questions and answers on re-hearing?—Undoubtedly. On a re-hearing, the parties on either side would know the material points they wanted to bring out.

177. And the necessary result of that is that the hearing of appeals under the present system is unduly long?—Quite so. When you say it is unduly long, I should like to say that I think that is necessarily due to the system, because so far as my colleagues and I were concerned, we did our best in every way that occurred to us to shorten it, and we found it impossible to do so. Unfortunately, the registrar who acted for us is no longer with us, but I think I am right in saying that our average was 3 cases per day. That is not to say three cases fully heard. It was three cases per day off the list of 700. What I mean is, three cases disposed of. Some of the cases occupied a very short time. Apart from isolated cases, which might occupy a long time, the average would be about three cases per day.

178. Senator Comyn.—Would three cases disposed of really mean less than two cases actually heard?—Some days we would dispose of quite a lot and on other days we would not get through one. Then on some particular day you might have two or three cases struck out. The list that we thought we could usefully publish did not exceed eight as a rule. We found early in the day whether these were to be real cases or whether some of them would not be coming on. In that way, we were able to give counsel an idea as to when their cases were likely to be heard.

179. Senator Hooper.—Speaking generally, would not this curtailment of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court involve litigants in some extra expense by forcing them into the High Courts?—In an isolated case, you might find that it did, but if you take the bulk of litigation as a whole, I think litigants would be saved expense. I think it would save litigants expense to be able to go to the High Court.

180. As the Court of first instance?— In the larger cases, yes. I do not for a moment suggest that if you take a particular item of costs in the High Court that that particular item of costs might not exceed the corresponding item of cost in the Circuit Court. But when you take into account the difficulty of arranging the lists, of bringing witnesses there day after day and paying their expenses for perhaps three days instead of one, and take the average of cases disposed of during the year round I am sure that if cases for over £100 were allowed to go to the High Court instead of to the Circuit Court less money would be spent on that litigation in the 12 months.

181. If that is so, does it not seem strange that so many cases are now brought into the Circuit Court?—There is no option but to do that.

182. Is there no option?—Perhaps I am wrong in saying that. There is no real option, but you may do it at your peril.

183. The peril, I take it, is of being mulcted in larger costs?

Senator Brown.—In not getting your costs.

184. Senator Hooper.—If the High Court costs are not to work out at anything higher than the Circuit Court costs, it does not seem to me that there is very much in it?—Perhaps I did not explain myself. What I meant was this. If you take a particular case, say for £200, and if you have to try that case in Tralee and bring the witnesses from Dublin to Tralee, making allowance for the fact that Judge McElligott would probably do everything that he reasonably could to facilitate you, you would have to pay your railway fare to Tralee on one side of the case and the chances are that you would have to pay hotel expenses for a couple of days in Tralee, and keep your witnesses waiting there during that period. The judge could not avoid that because it is inherent in the system and he does his best. On the other hand, if you were to try the same case in Dublin and the witnesses were coming from Tralee to Dublin the court would fix a day with certainty for the hearing of the case. That at most might mean spending one night in Dublin. Therefore, while the cost of a particular item of costs in the High Court may be higher than the same item of costs in the Circuit Court, the total bill of costs in a particular case I think would be less and the party who lost would be very much better off.

185. There is one sentence in your summary of evidence which I do not quite understand. You state “Litigants should be at liberty to resort to the High Court in all cases in which it is reasonable to do so without being penalised in costs, in cases within the reduced jurisdiction of the Circuit Court”?—What I meant by that was this. Assume that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was reduced to £100. There are cases under £100 where it would be reasonable that litigants should still proceed in the High Court. I would like to see the rules of the law altered in this respect, so that it would be open to a judge in the High Court to say, if it is reasonable, the parties should be given a hearing. There may be a case concerned only with a few pounds, but in which a serious question of law may be involved, or the custom of the Court. Again, there are many other cases where there is no difficulty as to a question of law, but where it is reasonable from the facts the parties should go to the High Court and get High Court costs, where, for instance, they may have to wait three months to go to the Circuit Court, or where witnesses would have to come from a long distance, say, the ends of Donegal. At present, it is almost impossible to get High Court costs in cases within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts.

186. Supposing that a litigant brings an action in the High Court that he could have brought in the Circuit Court and the defendant is successful in that case, can the defendant then get High Court costs? —He can, but where the defendant has defended an action brought in the High Court, but which could have been brought in the Circuit Court, it is always open to the defendant to ask the High Court at the earlier stages to have it sent down to the Circuit Court—that is before the expense is incurred.

187. Dealing with appeals, you state: “The old alternative appeal to the Court of Chancery, but with two judges, might be restored in Equity cases, and an alternative appeal in urgent common law cases for hearing in Dublin might be allowed on terms giving the Appeal Court discretion as to increased costs”?—In the old days there was an appeal in Equity cases from the County Court to the Judge of Assize. There was also an appeal in these cases to the Court of Chancery. It was open to the appellant to choose which appeal he would take, for in many cases, as legal members of the Committee will appreciate, the machinery of the Court of Chancery was better adapted for dealing with Equity cases than the Court of Assize. What is in my mind is that if the Committee were disposed to recommend an appeal by way of re-hearing to an itinerant tribunal such as an Assize, the old Assizes were held in March and July and it might be said an applicant would have to wait for a long time for the hearing of his appeal in such a case. I think in an urgent case it ought to be open to an appellant to say: “I want to appeal to a Court of Appeal with two judges. Instead of waiting until the next March Assizes I want it to be heard in November in Dublin, and if there is any increased cost it should be within the discretion of the Court to say whether I should bear it.” That is in order that the case may be dealt with promptly. In all cases in which the parties wish it, I would allow an appeal to a Court in Dublin, for in many cases it is cheaper and more expeditious.

188. Do you favour appeal to two judges instead of one?—Yes. I would be in favour of an appeal to two judges. First, because I believe two heads are better than one; and, secondly, because from the point of view of the litigant and the Court it is more satisfactory. There are judges in the Circuit Courts, and there used to be judges in the County Courts, from whose decisions on fact, if I tried an appeal alone, I would be slow to differ. Take Judge Drumgoole, of whom I had the highest possible opinion; I would differ from him with the greatest possible reluctance. I am speaking from what I felt when hearing appeals. If in hearing an appeal my opinion was different from the learned judge who decided the case, but if I turned to my colleague, Judge Shannon or Judge Fitzgerald, sitting with me at the time, and I found they held the same view as I did, my reluctance to differ with the judge would disappear at once. When I found my colleague agreed with me, it gave me greater confidence in the view I had formed. It is also more satisfactory to the litigant. I think the Court would be freer to deal with cases if there were two judges instead of one.

189. Deputy Little.—Do you not think it would be unreasonable to bring two litigants up to Dublin from, say, Kerry or Donegal?—May I answer the question in two ways? If one litigant is to come from Kerry and the other is to come from Donegal, I think they will find it far easier to meet in Dublin than to travel from Kerry to Donegal or from Donegal to Kerry. If the two are in the same town or area I think, as a rule, it is more satisfactory that the case, if a small one, should be tried under the local jurisdiction.

190. Does that apply to the larger cases?—I do not think so. It does not often happen. The larger cases would be in the town where the judge would be. If a litigant has to travel from one end of Kerry to the other, day after day, until his case is heard, that would cause inconvenience and delay to him much greater than would be caused by coming to Dublin and having his trial at a fixed date. It is always open to a litigant, as long as he is within the jurisdiction of the Court, if an action is brought against him in Dublin, to ask to have it remitted to be tried under the local jurisdiction. He would not require to come to Dublin to have that done.

191. Senator Comyn.—Do you not think that a Kerry man, for instance, would rather come to Dublin to have his case tried than pay a special fee to counsel to go down?—I think that is so.

192. Chairman.—Does it often happen in a case involving £100 that a litigant pays a special fee for counsel to go down? Are there not very few such cases?—I would not say that there are very few cases, but there are not many.

193. You and your colleagues seem to have arrived at the same figure of £100. How is that?—I did not know my colleagues had arrived at it. The old County Court jurisdiction was £50, and the value of money is a great deal less than it was. I think it is perfectly reasonable having regard to the present value of money that the old jurisdiction of £50 should be increased to £100.

194. Senator Brown.—You do not think that the old jurisdiction of £50, which is now £100, ought to have been in. creased?—No, my view was always against it, rightly or wrongly.

195. Deputy Little.—Having regard to the fact that the jurisdiction of the District Courts has been increased, do you not think there would be very little left for the Circuit Courts if your suggestion were carried out?—The work was done in the old County Courts by 26 judges. Assuming the Circuits Courts had only half the work to do, it would require 13 judges but there are only 8.

Senator Brown.—There are ten.*

Witness.—As far as the Circuits are concerned there are only 6 judges to do the work in 25 counties—that is leaving Dublin out. I think they probably would have to re-arrange their work to some extent. It is probable they would have to sit in a greater number of towns than they do at present. In five of the counties, Louth, Meath, Kildare, Wicklow and Wexford the Circuit Courts are held at most in eight or nine towns. In the old County Court days there would be sittings in 15 or 16 towns in those counties. There is increased work in the larger centres. The present arrangement make the courts less accessible to litigants, as a person may have to travel 25 miles to court instead of 5. I do not think a reduction of the jurisdiction will leave the Circuit Court Judges free from full time work.

196. Deputy Ruttledge.—As to the expense incurred by a litigant in having to wait over three or four days for the hearing of his case, is not that a question for the local Bar Association—the solicitors? The solicitors, I know, meet beforehand and fix the cases for a particular day?—That is a matter on which I cannot speak with personal knowledge. From my general knowledge of what happened at Assizes, it was never possible to do that. So far as I know from the fixing of lists in Dublin, in the class of cases corresponding to those we have in mind, it is not possible to know how long a case will take. In the hearing of our appeals we were in this difficulty, that if we put too many appeals on the lists we were incurring unnecessary costs, for people who were bound to attend had to be paid for waiting. Then if we put too few cases on the list, we might find ourselves leaving when we should have sat for another half-hour or so. I think it would be impossible to fix cases with certainty within a couple of days. Of course, some of the cases at the head of the list will almost certainly be reached the first day but with regard to cases at the end of the list you cannot tell how long they will have to wait.

Deputy Ruttledge.—The list is rearranged day after day so that people will know when they have to come to Court.

Witness.—I am not speaking from experience, because this is a matter I do not know of my own knowledge, but take County Kerry. Suppose a judge is sitting in Tralee and suppose the parties are in Listowel or Kenmare. How are they to hear of any arrangement come to by the solicitor who happened to be in Tralee at 5 o’clock on the evening before? I think that they must be in attendance for one or two days, perhaps unnecessarily. I may be wrong, but that is my view. Counsel who I know attend Circuit Courts in some places have complained that they have been waiting one or two days for cases, although the judge is doing his best to convenience them, but he finds himself with other cases that have to go on first, so that, with the best information they can get, they have to spend a day or two unnecessarily in the country.

197. Deputy Wolfe.—Following what Deputy Ruttledge has asked you, I am anxious to know where you got that harrowing picture of delays in the case of witnesses attending the Circuit Court?— I told you, I think frankly, that I have not been in the Circuit Courts and I do not know. My experience has been gathered from the Assizes in Belfas

Deputy Wolfe.—I have been in a of them occasionally.

Witness.—I think I made it clear that I had not personal knowledge on the spot of the working of the Circuit Courts. My experience was gathered simply from what clients told me in the old days and what I saw myself in the ordinary assize towns.

198. Leaving out the assize towns, will you agree that a good deal of your evidence will not apply if there is not at present inconvenience in the case of witnesses attending the Circuit Courts?— The only way in which I can answer you is this: If witnesses have not to wait in the Circuit Courts as they used to have to wait at the Assize Courts, then so much of my evidence as relates to witnesses waiting at the Circuit Courts drops out.

199. You will agree that it would be rather a strong proposition to suggest to a witness from Mizen Head that the nearest county town would not be more accessible to him than Dublin? Would you not consider the county town, which would be 200 miles nearer to him than Dublin, would be more accessible to him? —I did not say, nor did I intend to suggest, that it would not be more accessible, but I say that the Court in Dublin, which may be sitting to-morrow, while the local court may not be sitting to-morrow, may be more accessible.

200. Then so much of the précis of your evidence as suggests that the reduction of jurisdiction would increase accessibility must be taken subject to reservations?—Perhaps I have not made it clear to you, but what I mean is this: If the relief of the Circuit Court from a certain number of the larger cases which occupy time enables the judge to sit in more towns, as the old County Court Judges used to sit, to a certain number of litigants the Court will be more accessible. If the Court sits in a town like Tralee, shall we say, and the litigants live in Tralee, it will not be more accessible, because the Court would also sit in some other town like Killarney, but for litigants who live in Killarney and who may at present have to go to Tralee, if the change were to enable the Circuit Judge to sit in additional towns which would be nearer to them, it would render the Court more accessible.

201. Would not litigants in the West Riding of Cork, which is bigger than most counties in Ireland, necessarily have to come to Cork if they were coming to Dublin?—I am sure you are right, but my geography is not the best. I thought that some of them might go by Mallow.

202. It would follow that their own town would be at least 200 miles more accessible than Dublin?—I am not using the term “accessible” merely in the sense of distance.

203. What exactly had you in view when you suggested that there is trouble in arranging the list for the Circuit Courts in the country that would not be present in Dublin? Have you never known witnesses from the country coming to Dublin, having their case in the list for, say, Friday, and suddenly finding themselves in the happy position of having to wait until the following Wednesday? Not often. I do not remember a case, because in a case of that sort I can hardly imagine that the parties would ask the court to fix on Friday when there would be the possibility of such au eventuality. I have heard of cases being started on Tuesday, continued until Friday, and resumed on the following Tuesday.

204. I am referring to witnesses who had not been heard?—I do not remember a case in which witnesses from a distance were summoned for Friday and the case was not reached.

205. Did you ever hear of a country case in which the costs and expenses of a High Court action would be less than or equal to the costs and expenses of a Circuit Court action?—I cannot say that I did. I do not know what the cost would be in either case.

Deputy Wolfe.—I think you may take it that nobody else does either.

206. Senator Comyn.—Did you ever hear of a High Court case in which, on the allocation of the funds, the next-of-kin was entitled to 4½d. only? That was the result of litigation in a recent Circuit Court case?—No, I have never heard of such a case.

207. In regard to the man from Mizen Head who is presumed to have a £200 case. Suppose he was a small man who had a £30 case, would it not be much more convenient for him to go to Bantry for the hearing of his case than to go to Cork?—One would think so.

208. Would it not be much more convenient for a man at Mizen Head to travel to Dublin and have his case tried on one day than to go to Cork and wait for five days?—That was the view I took.

Chairman.—I am afraid this is developing into a question of centralisation of the law.

Witness.—I would prefer not to be asked some of these questions unless I am given a map, because my geography is not good enough.

209. Senator Brown.—You will not require a map to answer this question. You have been dealing with the reduction of the ordinary jurisdiction in contract and tort down to £100. Do you suggest that any other jurisdiction of the Circuit Court should be reduced, for instance, probate or company?—I think so. Unfortunately, I have not been able to give the same consideration to that, and I am not prepared to put a figure on it. But for some of the more complicated matters, like company work, machinery would be required in the Circuit Court, and I do not know what the present machinery is. Some of the county officers are very able men, but I think there is a lack of machinery in the ordinary Circuit Courts to deal with some of the more complicated matters.

Deputy Wolfe.—There is no machinery in the Circuit Courts for company work.

Witness.—Might I be allowed to mention one matter that is of importance? It is a matter on which I can speak of my own knowledge and in which I am not personally interested, so that I can speak freely on it. The hearing of Circuit Court appeals in the High Court at present requires two judges, and in recent times in the Courts it has meant that the Nisi Prius business, the jury cases and the contract cases, tried by a judge without a jury, had to be compressed into three weeks of the term. I think that is a bad thing for litigants and a bad thing for the Bar, in addition, because it often means that three Courts are trying these cases at the one time. I do not handle many of these cases, and that is why I can speak freely. On the other hand, it means delay in the hearing of Circuit Court appeals. I think that the present system causes delay and inconvenience in the work of the High Court, and also delay in the hearing of appeals.

Chairman.—Thanks, Mr. Overend, for your helpful evidence.

(The witness withdrew.)

The Committee adjourned at 5.57 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Friday, 20th December.

* 1925. (2) I.R. 240.

* Appendix 4.

* See Appendix 4.

* See Appendix 1. and Ques. 5860.