Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1930 > 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)

Dé Céadaoin, 2adh Abrán, 1930.

Wednesday, 2nd April, 1930.

The Joint Committee met at 12 noon.

DEPUTY D. MORRISSEY in the Chair.

Mr. F. A. Lowe, Director, Messrs. Hely’s, Ltd., Dame Street (on behalf of Dublin Mercantile Association), called and examined.

5670. Chairman.—Mr. Lowe, you are a director of Messrs. Hely, Ltd., Dame Street?—Yes.

5671. And you appear here to give evidence on behalf of the Dublin Mercantile Association?—I am an ex-President of the Dublin Mercantile Association.

5672. The evidence you propose to give will be on behalf of the Association?—On behalf of the Association and its members. Perhaps if the Committee will allow me to read a statement which I have prepared it might shorten the proceedings, and then the members of the Committee might like to question me upon that statement. It occurs to me that that might be the simplest way. I can submit a copy of the statement after I have read it.

5673. The only point about it is that there might be a question as to whether your statement would come within our terms of reference?—Quite so.

5674. Deputy Beckett.—It would be as well if Mr. Lowe read his statement, and he could be pulled up at any stage where he was going off the line.

5675. Chairman.—Then Mr. Lowe may read his statement to the Committee.

Witness:—

“The Dublin Mercantile Association represents 1,600 members, the majority of whom carry on business in Dublin. It was founded as a Mutual Trade Protection Society in 1882 and is affiliated to the National Association of Trade Protection Societies, whose affiliates represent 60,000 members in Great Britain and Ireland. It has also affiliations with Associations having objects similar to its own in the chief cities of Europe, and constantly acts as the local agents for the members of these Associations in the recovery of debts. The management of The Dublin Mercantile Association is in the hands of an honorary Committee the members of which are all actively engaged in the commerce of Dublin and the Irish Free State.

One of the chief functions of the Dublin Mercantile Association is the collection of debts for its members who view the working of the Act from the standpoint of how it helps or hinders them in their business. The Dublin Mercantile Association is interested principally in undefended debt cases as Plaintiffs in which the speed at which decrees or judgments can be obtained, is the prime consideration. It is in their interests that the processes of law for the recovery of debts should be rapid. If the processes of law are slow a creditor may suffer by the debtor taking protection of the Court of Bankruptcy before the claim is heard, or if another plaintiff obtains a judgment more quickly for a larger amount it may exhaust the available assets and so the first Plaintiff may be penalised because he was compelled to adopt a slower procedure. As between tardy but cheap, and speedy but expensive proceedings, creditors generally will prefer the latter.

The majority of the Association’s members carry on business in Dublin and its environs and all the Association’s affiliates are outside Saorstát Eireann.

It is greatly to their convenience, therefore, to have the unrestricted use of all the Courts.

Since the passing of the Act the experience of the Dublin Mercantile Association has been that the District Courts with jurisdiction up to £25 have functioned satisfactorily and that these Courts present means for reasonably rapid recovery of debts except in cases of urgency when the procedure in the High Court is quicker.

The Circuit Courts have not functioned so satisfactorily for various reasons—

(1) The jurisdiction in contract, in which the Dublin Mercantile Association is primarily interested, has been increased from £50 to £300, with the result that there is a very considerable increase in the volume of work in the Court.

(2) The machinery and office staffs generally are inadequate to keep pace with the vastly increased jurisdiction in contract and the large increase in the other jurisdictions, which include Equity, Workmen’s Compensation, Malicious Injury Claims, Probate, Licensing, Criminal Work, etc., all of which crowd out the contract work.

(3) Rules governing procedure have not been issued.

(4) The comparatively infrequent sittings of the Courts, coupled with the inability to issue proceedings except for the next ensuing sittings; and

(5) The period which elapses between the granting and issue of a decree.

It may happen that a Civil Bill is issued on a date just late for a sittings of the Circuit Court, in which case it must wait two to four months until the next sittings of the Court. If an appearance to defend is entered there will necessarily be further time occupied, and finally the issue of decree takes still further time.

The following are examples of Circuit Court procedure:—

UNDEFENDED CASES.

DEFENDED CASES.

DEFENDED CASES REMITTED FROM HIGH COURT.

ISSUE OF DECREES.

Calls made to office by clerks about three times a week to ascertain if any decrees have been signed and are ready.

The following is a typical time-table of an undefended High Court action:—

Summary summons issued, say, 10th January and served the same day. Judgment can be obtained on morning of 19th January.

The Dublin Mercantile Association suggest the following remedies:—

(a) Alternative procedure fully and frankly authorised in the High Court, in every case, at the option of plaintiff. This is the quickest method of obtaining judgment, because the machinery exists in the High Court (and in neither District nor Circuit Courts) for the issue of a summons and the marking of judgment on any day irrespective of sittings. That the Master should have power to remit High Court actions to the Circuit Court, where the sum claimed is within the jurisdiction of the inferior Court. Such High Court actions should not be remitted unless—

(1) The defendant, when entering his appearance, calls for a remittal, and

(2) the defendant files an affidavit averring that he has a good defence in law and on the merits, and disclosing fully the nature of the defence, and

(3) the Master is satisfied by this affidavit that the defence is a bona fide one. A copy of the defendant’s affidavit to be served on the plaintiff at the same time as the notice of appearance.

In order that the defendant should not be unduly penalised by proceedings in a superior Court, the costs there recoverable might be met either by the High Court scale in operation prior to 1924, or the High Court scale at present in operation, whichever is the less onerous on the defendant, save, however, in cases where both parties reside or carry on business in the same Civil Bill jurisdiction, when the costs might be the corresponding Circuit (or District) Court costs plus High Court outlay.

Reduce the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and increase the number of its Judges and staff, in order that such actions as are started in it, or remitted to it, may be dealt with as rapidly as in the High Court, or with, at least, far greater rapidity than at the moment.

At this stage the Chair was taken by Deputy Wolfe.

5676. Chairman.—Mr. Lowe, you have given some instances here of remitted actions. The first case you gave was an action remitted on 2nd March, 1928, and it was not heard until the 1st February, 1929?—Yes.

5677. Do you not see that there must be some facts in connection with that delay which were not disclosed to you?—No, I do not see that.

5678. The practice is that you remit an action from the High Court for hearing to the Circuit Court and do you not know that you could not remit an action in March where the next Circuit Court would be February, 1929?—You mean that there must be sittings of the Circuit Court between these two dates?

5679. Chairman.—Yes, there are four sittings in the year?—I must assume it was not heard at the next sittings or the sittings following. That was because it could not be heard. The sittings had concluded before it was reached.

5680. But the second and third sittings could not have concluded?—I am prepared to agree to that. I am assuming that at none of these three sittings was it found possible to hear the case. That has been our experience in Dublin.

5681. Would you not assume that the solicitors who appeared for the Dublin Mercantile Association consented to an adjournment of the case for one reason or another?—No, I would not. All the cases that I referred to are Dublin cases.

5682. You know, of course, that in Dublin an unusual number of cases accumulated and that the delay in the hearing of these cases was caused by the shortage of Judges and, that that has now been remedied?—I know it has been remedied but not sufficiently.

5683. You know there has been an extra Judge appointed in Dublin?—I do.

5684. And we have evidence that as regards the Dublin Circuit Court the situation has become normal?—It is nearer to normal than it was, but I do not admit that it has become normal.

5685. You do agree that it is becoming normal, and, therefore, your suggestion must be treated carefully, having regard to the financial side?—Our case is the claim for alternative procedure frankly authorised in the High Court.

5686. You are speaking about the alternative procedure in the High Court. We have had two or three Associations here—I do not say this of your Association; I know it does not apply to them— and it is the experience of everybody in the country that some members of these Associations have been issuing writs in the High Court for small sums like £3, £5, or £10. It has been suggested here by witnesses that the issuing of writs for these small sums might create a great oppression and might become a great abuse of the powers of the High Court?— Yes, I understand that.

5687. I know that your Association is not a culprit in that respect, but do you not see that if you are to get the benefit of the alternative procedure in the High Court, the man in the street ought be protected against certain risks as to costs?—I agree that if the process were abused it might succeed in clogging up the High Court with a lot of unnecessary business. But we suggest that the defendant is not unduly penalised so far as costs are concerned, and that the machinery in the High Court is more or less automatic, and there is not the same danger of clogging as there is in the Circuit Court, where there are more processes to be gone through.

5688. Let us give you a concrete case. I want you to advise a country solicitor as to what advice he should give his client in this case. A country trader is sued for £6 in the High Court. He believes he has a good defence, but, owing to the nature of the defence, no solicitor can absolutely guarantee the trader that he will succeed. It will depend on the view that the Judge takes of a particular set of facts. The trader goes to the solicitor with this writ for £6, to which he thinks he has a good defence. The solicitor also thinks he has a good defence to it, but he cannot guarantee that he will win the case. In such circumstances, what advice do you think an honest solicitor ought to give?— It is very hard to answer that question.

5689. Senator Dowdall.—Put yourself at the moment in the position of the defendant?—I can only remember the advice that was given a very great many years ago: “He that would take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” If a man served me with that writ for £6, I think I would be inclined to pay the £6.

5690. Chairman.—I agree with you. That is the advice that a country solicitor has to give, assuming that he is an honest man. Now, do you not think that that would be very unfair to the man in the street?—In what way?

5691. He is being put in the position that you deprive him, in effect, of his right to have his case heard save under possibly enormous penalty?—You are not depriving him of his right. He still retains his right.

5692. Theoretically, you are putting him under a possible penalty so great that, according to your own admission, if he is a wise man he will pay the debt that he believes he does not owe and that his solicitor believes he does not owe?—But is not that the case with all processes of law?

Not all processes of law. It has been changed?—In what way?

5693. Chairman.—If you issue your writ in the High Court now, you do not get the costs; a penalty will follow if you alter the procedure?—You mean if the case is remitted from the High Court?

5694. Yes, if the case is remitted. If the case is remitted, the man who issues the writ will be penalised. Under the Constitution, you cannot deprive a man of his right to go to the High Court. He wants to sue for a £1 and he has a right to go to the High Court but you make the man who abuses the process of the Court pay the penalty?—I agree, but I do not see any abuse of the process of the Court in settling.

5695. You do not think it is an abuse of the process of the Court if you sue a man in the High Court for £5?—I do not think it is, unless I am penalising him.

5696. You are penalising him under the altered procedure, because you make him pay a sum that he does not owe. You told me now that in a case where a man had a good defence to an action for £6 you would advise him to pay?—Yes, but that penalty exists in all processes of law. If I pay a debt in those circumstances, I am paying it for my own peace of mind, to save bother and worry.

5697. May I take it that the view of your Association is that you would not think it is an abuse of the process of the Court to issue a writ for small amounts in the High Court?—That is so, so long as the defendant is not unduly penalised by our doing so.

5698. But do you not see that he is?—I do not, with all respect, sir. Supposing he had to take an action in the Circuit Court and supposing that he said exactly the same thing, he would still be paying something that he considered, first of all, that he did not owe and he would be paying the appropriate costs. My suggestion is, that if the High Court costs are comparable with the Circuit Court costs in that particular case, then it is not an abuse of the Court.

5699. Do you not appreciate that the High Court costs are not comparable with the Circuit Court costs in these small amounts?—I have some figures here which will show you what I mean.

5700. Take it that you are suing me for £6 in the High Court?—Well, curiously enough, here are £6 figures, and they, undoubtedly, in this particular case, are in your favour. In the District Court the costs, I am instructed, in such a case will be £1 11s. 6d. Now the next step is downward. In the Circuit Court the costs in the same case are 19s., and in the High Court the existing costs are £2 16s. 9d. The suggestion I made was that they should be £2 2s. 6d. The greater the amount sued for, the lower is the proportion of costs in the High Court and the higher the proportion of costs in the Circuit and District Courts. If the £6 that is sued for becomes £12, the figures are very different. In that case the District Court costs are £1 19s. 6d.

5701. Do you not see that these figures do not touch the point? What would the costs be if you sue a man in the High Court and he puts in his defence—that is the point?—I am not particularly interested in defended cases. I have made that clear in my statement.

5702. But you understand the duty is cast on this Committee to defend the rights of the citizens?—I am not primarily concerned with defended cases.

5703. Take it from me that the evidence before us was that a man sued for £6 will have to incur an expense of £16 to get that case remitted to the Circuit Court. Take that for a moment. Apart from the plaintiff’s costs, which are running in your mind, if he defends the case and he is unsuccessful his costs will be £16?—That is to say, if he has not a good defence.

5704. He thinks he has a good defence in law, but he loses the case. Bringing the motion in the High Court to remit the case and entering an appearance in the High Court, filing his affidavits and so on will cost the man £12—for defending a writ for £6. Do you think that is fair?— No, I do not.

5705. I am glad to hear that. I am bound again to tell you that so far as your Association is concerned—there have been observations made as regards other Associations—my personal experience, extending over thirty years, completely exculpates your Association from any of the abuses to which I am drawing attention. I have known your Association and its work for a good period, since the year 1893, but do you not think it would be a very serious thing if we did not take care that the abuses which have taken place in the past should be remedied?— Yes, I think that is quite a fair statement.

5706. At the same time, safeguarding as far as we can the rights of creditors?— That, of course, is our interest in the matter.

5707. Do you not think it is also our interest as representing the people to keep the credit of the country as high as possible?—I think it is your first duty.

5708. I agree with that. As regards your complaint as to the difficulties that have arisen owing to the Rules not being issued, how have these difficulties arisen? —I understand such difficulties as there are have largely arisen on this question of costs—that there is no scale at present in existence with regard to costs. That is a matter I do not propose to develop any further, because primarily the Association is not interested in the question of costs, except in so far as these costs are recoverable for its members.

5709. Is not the old County Court scale of costs in use in the Circuit Court up to £50?—I understand that it is an amalgamation of that scale with some other scale which is in use.

5710. Is it not the old County Court scale plus the permitted increase, up to £50?—I believe that is so up to that figure.

5711. Then up to £50 there is no difficulty?—So far as costs are concerned that is so.

5712. Over £50 the procedure differs in different Circuit Courts?—Yes.

5713. So far as the Rules are concerned, there has been some inconvenience or at all events some doubt as to the costs recoverable in an action over £50. Except for that, has there been any real inconvenience caused owing to the non-issue of Rules?—I am not aware that there is any real inconvenience other than in the question of costs.

5714. Would you be surprised to know that there may be a very real danger of increased inconvenience and costs caused by the issuing of the Rules, from which the trading community have up to this been saved?—All I know is, judging by the time the Committee has taken to issue these Rules, that they are apparently having very considerable difficulty.

5715. You referred to the delay in the issuing of decrees?—Yes.

5716. Where that does occur there is of course no excuse for it, but we are here only to advise alterations in the existing legislation. Is that not a matter for procedure or Rules rather, than a matter requiring any alteration in legislation?— I do not think it could be governed by Rules except so far as the Rules provided for adequate staffs. In other words, as far as our experience goes, the machinery does not exist in the Circuit Court for the automatic issue of Civil Bills in the first instance and for the automatic getting out of judgment in the second. Our view of it was that to make the Circuit Court function as satisfactorily as the High Court functions in these particulars, would involve an enormous increase in personnel and consequently an enormous increase in the cost of administration.

5717. It might happen without any increased costs?—We can only speak from experience and certainly our experience as far as Dublin is concerned is that there are these delays.

5718. Have you considered the question of appeals from the Circuit Court?—Not particularly except in so far as there are cases of delay.

5719. If you have not considered it I will not ask you anything about it because it is a very difficult subject?—We are not particularly interested in the question of appeals.

5720. You are against delay?—We are entirely against delay. That is our complaint. If the District Court or the Circuit Court could function as quickly as the High Court does, it would be to the interest of all of us.

5721. Your recommendation is that we should speed up procedure?—First of all we should be permitted to employ all the Courts with safeguards and that concurrently with that the machinery of both the Circuit Court and the District Court— the District Court we have very little trouble with but, on the question of delay we have a good deal of trouble with the Circuit Court—should be adjusted and speeded up. That is all we claim. We are not particularly interested in what the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court should or should not be. If it is as easy for us to proceed in the Circuit Court we will proceed there. We want to get our business done as quickly as possible. As already stated our members may be penalised by reason of the fact that a man who has a claim for £350 can proceed in the High Court and get his judgment in ten days whereas the man who has a claim for £50 must wait perhaps a month or two months to proceed in the Circuit Court.

5722. Senator Dowdall.—You told us of the delay in the hearing of a remitted action?—Yes.

5723. And the Chairman told you that automatically that would come up at the next sitting of the Circuit Court?—Yes.

5724. Approximately four sittings of the Circuit Court take place in a year?—There are seven in Dublin, but I believe there are fewer in the country.

5725. We will take it that approximately there are four. This remitted action of yours, for some cause or other that has not been disclosed, was not heard for a considerable number of months?— Yes.

5726. Accordingly adjournments must have taken place?—Do not take me as agreeing with that, because, without knowing exactly what happens, I think if the business of the Circuit Court sitting is not in fact completed at the end of the sitting, cases which are not heard at that time are adjourned automatically to the next sitting. I think that is, very likely, what happened in this case; but if the Committee are anxious to know what exactly happened in this particular case I will get the details sent to them. I was careful in preparing the statement that we should not put anything into it upon which any question of doubt might arise, but I think where the delay was inexplicable it was largely due to overcrowding of work.

5727. Let us take it that the defendant in such remitted action suffered from a serious illness, and that, possibly by consent of the legal representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant, was considered a reasonable cause for an agreed adjournment. The action, you will bear in mind, was a remitted action?—Yes.

5728. If that action went on in the High Court, and that the defendant were seriously ill, he could not swear an affidavit to stay the proceedings or get it remitted. A man suffering from typhoid fever would not be permitted to swear an affidavit?—But surely again, looking at the matter from the point of view of a layman, in a case of that sort an arrangement would undoubtedly be come to by the solicitors acting for both parties. Solicitors are human, so far as I know anything about them.

5729. I am aware that many of them are, but let me put this case to you: A plaintiff wishing to get speedy judgment proceeds through his solicitor in the Court against a farmer or trader in West Cork or Donegal. That man being seriously and critically ill at the time, judgment would go by default against him whether he owed the sum or not?—Would not that be the case —I am asking for an opinion rather than giving it—no matter in what court you proceeded?

5730. If you proceeded in the local court, the local circumstances would be known, and I think a solicitor would be there to represent the facts to the tribunal, and an adjournment would take place. I see your point, that the High Court being open to a man who has a claim against an estate for £350, he might get in and get judgment to the detriment of an equally valid creditor for £50. What I am leading up to is: can you suggest any safeguard for the defendant consistent with securing what you wish to do for the trading body you represent?—No. In the instance you give, I can only say what somebody has already said, that hard cases make bad law.

5731. Senator Hooper.—You spoke of delays occurring in the Circuit Court owing to the fact that cases not entered before a particular date have to remain over for a subsequent sitting?—Yes.

5732. Is there any means, in your opinion, by which that could be avoided? —There is a suggestion contained in the last paragraph that you should make the procedure in the Circuit Court similar to that in the High Court by which a summons can be issued any day irrespective of when the sittings open or close.

5733. That there would be continuous sittings more or less?—Continuous in that sense.

5734. And that when cases were entered they would take their place in the list and be reached in order?—Yes. You will remember that in the evidence I have given, I am dealing almost entirely with undefended cases. I do not know what the proportion is in regard to defended cases but it is very small. These are ordinary debt collecting cases.

5735. As regards delay in securing civil bill decrees, have you any experience of that matter in other countries and as to how the delay here compares with the position in England?—I have no direct experience but my belief is that in England the County Courts sit more or less continuously. I do not think that they are limited in the same way as we are.

5736. Have you any evidence to show that the delays here are seriously greater than elsewhere?—I have no evidence on that.

5737. You spoke of giving the Master of the High Court power to remit actions? —Yes. That has been because there has been some doubt—more than doubt, in fact—thrown on what the Master’s jurisdiction is. The suggestion was that his duties and powers should be strictly defined so that litigants should not go before him thinking that he had power when, as a matter of fact, he had not.

5738. Do you think that such power should be given to anybody other than a High Court Judge?—We would be satisfied with the Master and, after all, we have a particular interest in it. If the defendant files an affidavit showing that he has a good defence in law, we think that that is a matter that ought not to be open. It is a thing that can be abused simply for the purpose of gaining time.

5739. Chairman.—Prior to the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, that was never the law?—No.

5740. No defendant would get an action remitted unless he showed that he had a good defence?—Yes and declared what the defence was. All that he has to do at present is simply to enter a defence and that has the effect of deferring judgment for a little longer.

5741. Senator Hooper.—Would you confine that power of remittal to a certain class of action?—I am only dealing with cases of contract, that is, cases of debt.

5742. Would you give the Master that power in all cases of contract?—Yes.

5743. That power at present is only exercised by a High Court Judge?—So I understand. I think the position was that the Master thought that he had power to do it, and, in fact, did exercise the power, but it was held that it did not rest in him.

5744. Chairman.—Your suggestion is that he should get judicial powers?—So far as this is concerned.

5745. Senator Hooper.—I do not think that the right to remit actions was supposed to be included in his functions, as originally defined in the Courts of Justice Act.

5746. Chairman.—By the Rules. It has been suggested by you that he should get a judicial right to remit?—Yes.

5747. Senator Hooper.—The point was raised before, but, as far as I remember, there was no support for it. I think that you are the first witness who has come forward with this suggestion. May we take it that there is support for the suggestion in quarters other than your Association?—I would be surprised if that suggestion is not adopted by every commercial association.

5748. On the question of remitting actions, a suggestion was made here that, when a case was the subject of a remittal motion, and when such case was retained in the High Court, the trial Judge should not have discretion as to costs, and that High Court costs should follow the event? —I think that that should be reasonable. Would you mind repeating that question in case I did not get it correctly?

5749. The idea is that when a case which is within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is brought in the High Court, when the defendant asks to have it remitted to the Circuit Court, and when the Judge decides that it must be retained in the High Court, that decision should govern costs, and, no matter what the result of the trial is, costs should be on the High Court scale?—Yes, that the defendant, having lost the motion to remit, should be called on to pay the costs of the motion.

5750. Yes, and that the plaintiff should not be penalised once he won the remittal motion?—I think that that should follow.

5751. Senator Farren.—You are speaking mainly on behalf of Dublin?—Our members are very largely in Dublin.

5752. Is it your opinion that your members think that the District Courts are functioning satisfactorily?—Yes.

5753. Is there any difficulty in recovering debt in Dublin?—Very little.

5754. Then why would you allow a member to sue for £5 in the High Court?— We do not allow him, nor do we do it for our members, but there may be circumstances in which even a day makes a difference. We may know that a man is wobbling in business and is going to take protection of the Court, and the sooner we get judgment the better for our member. The High Court may give you judgment in ten days, whereas the District Court might take a fortnight or three weeks.

5755. Will it take a fortnight or three weeks?—Yes.

5756. Does it not sit every week for civil business?—Yes.

5757. Could you get it more speedily in the High Court?—Not in the majority of cases. We say that we have no complaint in regard to the District Court with the jurisdiction up to £25. We say that such Courts present a ready means for a reasonably rapid recovery of debts, except in cases of extreme urgency.

5758. So far as my information goes, the procedure in the District Court is more speedy?—Then, if it is, we use the District Court invariably.

5759. Where both parties are resident in Dublin, I think it would be an abuse of the Courts to sue in the High Court for a debt which could be recovered in the District Court?—And as speedily, I agree.

5760. And that anybody who did so should be penalised?—I agree.

5761. Chairman.—You complained about the delay in issuing decrees?—Yes.

5762. Do you not observe that in the return you give you leave out the crucial date, the date on which the decree was lodged for signature?—You may take it that that is the day on which the civil bill was granted.

5763. Oh, no?—Why?

5764. That is not so. It depends on the degree of speed with which the solicitor or his clerk fills the decree and lodges it for signature. In practice it is never issued on the day it is signed?—I would be surprised if there is more than twenty-four hours in the difference.

5765. I will not give away any trade secrets?—You must remember that the Association has 1,600 clients all of whom are anxious to get their money. The Committee meets every week for the express purpose of speeding up tardy solicitors. Our experience has been that the solicitors who represent the Association do their work, either for fear or for love, extraordinarily speedily. Our whole reason for existence is speed.

5766. I agree. I have moved some hundreds of civil bills for your Association and I am glad to hear that they were issued on the day they were granted?— Mr. Chapman tells me that in his experience the decree is usually issued on the following day, if not the day after.

Mr. Chapman.—I do not think that there is any doubt about that.

Mr. A. R. Chapman, Secretary, Dublin Mercantile Association, called and examined.

5767. Chairman.—May we take it, Mr. Chapman, that you have heard the evidence of Mr. Lowe and that you agree with it?—Yes.

5768. Is there anything you wish to add?—I do not think so as Mr. Lowe has dealt fully with the matter.

I wish to say on behalf of every member of the Committee how much we are obliged to both of you for the manner in which you have given us the benefit of your great experience. I wish to express regret, which every member of the Committee feels, that in your case you have been delayed and inconvenienced by being asked to come here on a second occasion. We greatly regret that that should have happened.

(Witnesses then withdrew.)

Mr. M. Knightly, Editor of Debates, Oireachtas, called and examined.

5771. Chairman.—Mr. Knightly, would you prefer to give your evidence direct?— We have sent in a memorandum.

5772. Yes?—I think that that covers the matter sufficiently but if there is any question you care to ask, I shall be pleased to answer it.

5773. As regards Court reporting generally, am I right in saying that it requires exceptional accuracy?—Yes.

5774. Is it not a fact that the accuracy of the Court Reporter depends, to some extent, on the length of time that he can keep accurate?—Yes.

5775. I think what the Committee want to know from you and Mr. Flynn is whether, in your opinion, one stenographer is able to do the work of the Circuit Court satisfactorily, assuming that he has to work some days, from 11 until 5 o’clock, with an hour off?—One stenographer could take notes for an entire day, but if there were a number of appeals in his court, it would be too much to ask a man to work at night to transcribe notes of cases after taking notes all day in court. I do not know how he could cope with the work.

5776. The point we are really on is not that, because he can do that later on?— That he is liable to get tired and err because of his tiredness?

5777. Apart from that, what the Committee want to know is, can you get a court reporter to sit from 11 o’clock until 5 o’clock, with an hour off, and do his work accurately?—I think you can. I myself have taken notes for an entire day, time after time.

5778. Senator Dowdall.—In a Court?— Yes, and at the old Dáil Industries Commission, of which Senator Dowdall was a member, I took notes for as long as six and seven hours per day.

5779. Senator Hooper.—I suppose you are aware that frequently some of these courts sit very much later than 5 o’clock? —Yes, in exceptional cases.

5780. The Central Criminal Court, for instance? Yes, in murder cases.

5781. Sometimes, they are kept until 10 or 11 at night?—That would be only in a very exceptional case.

5782. Do you know whether, in that case, any special arrangements are made to relieve the reporter?—I am not aware that there are any special arrangements made.

5783. I take it you would agree that in such a case there ought to be some arrangements made?—There ought to be. It is very unfair to oblige a man to take notes for such a very long period.

5784. Do you know how these court reporters were recruited?—I have no personal knowledge. I think it was done more or less in a haphazard way. They are mostly temporary men; they are not established. Up to a few months ago, I think, many of them were attached to newspapers and did the Court sittings in their own district.

5785. Did you ever hear of people being engaged as court reporters who were not at newspaper work, but in business life; a case was mentioned here of an auctioneer doing the work?—I happen to know that man. He had newspaper experience before he took up auctioneering.

5786. Chairman.—I understand that in order to become a competent court reporter you must have experience of court work?—Certainly.

5787. If some of the best members of the Dáil staff, for instance, were sent to do court work, for a time they might not be able to do it until they learned the work?—Most of the members of the Dáil staff have had experience of court work.

5788. I am only suggesting that in the case of a member of the Dáil staff who had never done court work, and who was not accustomed to it?—He would find it difficult. He would have to get accustomed to the atmosphere.

5789. In order to get a competent court reporter, you must have a man with knowledge and experience of the court atmosphere?—That is so.

5790. Senator Hooper.—Would you think that a man who has newspaper training ought to be a better man than a person of another avocation?—Certainly.

5791. Would you think an ordinary shorthand-typist in a solicitor’s office, or in any office of that kind, would be as well qualified, other things being equal, as a newspaper-trained stenographer?— I think that would apply in only one case in a thousand.

5792. Chairman.—You suggest a newspaper reporter with knowledge of the court atmosphere?—A man on a newspaper must have years of experience before he can do a decent report of a difficult court case—at least, five years’ experience, I should say.

5793. Senator Hooper.—You would not put any one to do an official report of court proceedings who had not many years’ experience of Court work?—I would not. I do not think he could do it efficiently.

5794. Chairman.—You suggested five years, I think?—That is my own belief.

5795. You would put that as the minimum?—Yes.

Chairman.—It was suggested, as against the Press reporter, that possibly he has got into the habit of paraphrasing and that, to that extent, his report might not be as accurate as the report of a person who had not Press experience?

5796. Senator Hooper.—I do not think that was the way it was put. The suggestion was that the newspaper man, if he found himself beaten, might short circuit his note and paraphrase it, where as the non-newspaper stenographer would not dare to do that?—A capable note-taker would not do that. The man who would do that would be a person who having an imperfect or inadequate note of the case would endeavour to get out of the difficulty by paraphrasing.

5797. The suggestion was that the non-newspaper stenographer, in a difficulty of that kind, would say that he could not go on and that he wanted them to slow up, and that that kind of a stenographer was more satisfactory than the newspaper man who would struggle on, even if in difficulty?—An experienced newspaper man would hold up a witness if he was going too fast or if he misheard or had any doubt about an answer. You must have a conscientious man doing work of that kind, because a conscientious man, if he is in doubt about an answer, will get the witness to repeat it.

5798. Is it not equally likely that what we may call the amateur stenographer will fall into the same mistake as the professional stenographer when in a difficulty and will try to struggle on instead of holding up the Court?—As a matter of fact, I believe it is the incompetent person who will try to struggle on. The competent man will hold up the witness, because he will want to make sure he has a proper note. Of course, even a competent man is liable to err. There are numerous pitfalls in shorthand, and even the most competent man is liable to fall into an error in transcribing his notes.

5799. Senator Dowdall.—I myself referred to Lord Halsbury last week and I was reported as having referred to Lord Salisbury?—That was rather a bad slip. It might, however, not be the reporter’s error.

Senator Hooper.—It might be a mishearing.

5800. Chairman.—Assuming you took a report of a Circuit Court sitting to-day, if you transcribe your notes to-night you will, of course, have the assistance of your recollection of the case?—That is so.

5801. You will have a mental picture of the case before you. Within what period can you transcribe your notes accurately?—Of course, memory is a great aid in transcribing notes, but when you take up notes after a period has elapsed it is surprising how soon the recollection of the subject-matter, aided by association of ideas, will come back to you.

5802. When you start transcribing the notes, the picture will come back?—Yes, it will come back. You may have the feeling that it will not come back and that you will have great difficulty in transcribing your notes after such a long period, but once you get going it will come back.

5803. Your view is, if you did a long case to-day and did not transcribe your notes for a month, that when you begin to transcribe, the picture will come back? —It will come back—that is my experience.

5804. Before you are long at it, the recollection will come back?—Yes, the recollection of the case.

5805. The notes will bring it back to you?—Yes.

5806. Senator Dowdall.—In reference to prolonged sittings, more particularly in criminal cases, I think you told us that there is no arrangement by which the note-takers can be relieved?—I am not aware that there is.

5807. You realise that it is particularly important in criminal cases that, in view of a possible appeal, there should be great accuracy?—It is particularly important in criminal cases.

5808. It is, accordingly, particularly important that the note-taker should not be so fatigued as to prevent even the very best of men taking a really reliable note? —That is so. If the case is in any way difficult, the taking of a proper note requires a great deal of concentration. If you have to take notes over a long period the concentration will be impaired; you will get tired and take the notes mechanically. The notes, therefore, will be more difficult to read afterwards, apart from any error that may occur because of the taking of notes in a mechanical way. To take a proper note, you must have an intelligent grasp of the case and at the same time be physically fit.

5809. To minimise the risk of error, it would be desirable, in your opinion, that an arrangement should be made by which the note-taker should be relieved during a very long sitting in the Criminal Court? —It would be desirable that the work should be centralised in some way and that you should have a headquarters staff not alone to relieve men in Dublin but down the country. In one man’s district, there may be a large number of appeals, particularly if the scope of appeal is widened. The transcript of the evidence will be required by a certain date and he may get an order for transcripts in half-a-dozen cases. If he is to transcribe his notes, he should be taken off court work until he has his transcription completed and another man should be sent to take his place in court. Of course, the more laborious part of the work is in the transcribing of the notes and not in the taking of them. While one man may be fully occupied, there may be, in another man’s district, very few appeals, and there should be an arrangement by which a man could be transferred from one district to another. One man, of course, may be more efficient than another, and if there was a particularly difficult case coming on an exceptionally capable man should be sent to report that case.

5810. Your answer suggests to me that the reporting staff in the courts—and when I say Courts, I mean not only the Dublin Courts but the Circuit Courts,— should be a staff under the jurisdiction of some responsible officer in the court?— That is what I would suggest.

Mr. W. J. Flynn, Official Reporting Staff, Oireachtas, called and examined.

5811. Chairman.—Mr. Flynn, you have heard Mr. Knightly’s evidence; do you agree with it?

Mr. Flynn.—Absolutely.

5812. In its entirety?—Yes.

5813. Are you satisfied that it is possible to get the work of a Circuit Court stenographer discharged efficiently by one man? —Subject to what Mr. Knightly says. If you have a great number of appeals, and the stenographer is called upon to transcribe in a great number of cases, he is faced with very laborious work and he should be set free for a period to prepare his transcript. Transcription occupies about six times the period of note-taking.

The Witnesses withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m.