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)

Déardaoin, 3adh Abrán, 1930.

Thursday, 3rd April, 1930.

The Committee sat at 12 o’clock noon.

DEPUTY MORRISSEY in the Chair.

Mr. S. A. Roche, Assistant Secretary, Department of Justice, called and examined.

5814. Chairman.—You are Assistant Secretary to the Department of Justice: —Yes.

5815. You have occupied that position for some years?—Three and a half years. I was Principal Clerk for a couple of years before that.

5816. Your Department arranged for the appointment of stenographers in the Circuit Courts?—Yes.

5817. I understand that some of these are whole-time officers and some part-time officers?—There are ten Circuit Court Judges. Eight of these have a stenographer each. Those eight stenographers are appointed as practically whole-time officials and are paid yearly salaries. They do no outside work. There remain two other Judges—Judge Sealy and Judge Wakely. They have not got whole-time stenographers. Judge Sealy has two or three stenographers in one county alone.

5818. How are the stenographers paid? Are they paid on a salary basis?—The eight men working constantly, one for each Judge, are paid salaries. The salary varies slightly. It is usually just a little over £300 a year, inclusive.

5819. Senator Dowdall.—What does “inclusive” mean there?—That it carries no bonus. In addition, there is travelling and subsistence allowance.

5820. Chairman.—How are the part-time stenographers paid?—In different ways. Some of them are getting a lump sum per annum; others are paid at the ordinary reporters’ rates of 8d. a folio for the transcript of evidence and two guineas a day for attendance in Court.

5821. What were the qualifications required?—When the Courts of Justice Act of 1924 was passed we had to provide stenographers. We had to find them in a hurry. It so happened at that time that owing to the collapse of a Dublin newspaper there was a number of ex-reporters available and that helped us. Only for that, we would have found ourselves in a difficulty.

5822. Are part-time stenographers appointed by your Department or has the Judge himself any say in the matter?— We appoint them all.

5823. I take it that the part-time man is informed when he will be required by the Judge?—Yes. He is in close touch with the County Registrar and he knows when the Judge is sitting.

5824. And when he has concluded his work with the Judge, he returns to his ordinary work, if he has any?—Quite so.

5825. Have any complaints reached your Department as to how stenographers do their work?—No, I cannot remember one.

5826. Can you tell us the opinion of your Department on this question of stenographers—does the Department consider it has been a success?—There is a difficulty in answering that. The Act provides that appeals shall be on the stenographer’s notes. We found the stenographers and they make notes of the cases. We have had no complaints about the notes. From that point of view, it is a success. On the broader issue as to whether the system has been a success, I would not care to say anything.

5827. Senator Dowdall.—You had no complaints?—Perhaps I should say few, if any, complaints.

5828. You investigate any complaints made?—We would, but I cannot remember any.

5829. Chairman.—Do you share the view that an official stenographer should be attached to every Court?—Not to the District Court. I do not think that anybody would suggest it.

5830. There are appeals from the District Courts to the Circuit Courts?—Yes, but these appeals are not on the notes.

5831. They are by way of re-hearing?— Yes.

5832. Are you of opinion that in the hearing of these appeals in the Circuit Court notes of the evidence which had been given in the District Courts would be of use?—It would, of course, but the position would be this—take a whole week’s business in the District Court with the District Justice sitting, constantly day by day until perhaps 6 o’clock in the evening. In the first place, one stenographer would not be able to do the work—you would want two stenographers —and the result of the whole week’s work might be that you would have no appeal in any of the cases dealt with. You would have the stenographer with a bundle of voluminous notes, and these notes would be useless.

5833. There would be a difficulty in getting the number of stenographers required and there would be a great deal of expense?—Yes.

5834. What do stenographers cost the country at present?—The salaries of the stenographers attached to the Circuit Court amount to £3,415 a year and their expenses amount to £650 a year. That is a total of over £4,000.

5835. Deputy Little.—How many stenographers?—Ten. When I say there are ten, I mean there are eight whole-time stenographers and the two other Judges have part-time stenographers, equivalent to two more, making up ten altogether.

5836. Chairman.—How much is received back by way of fees?—About £450 a year.

5837. So that, roughly, the net cost to the State is about £3,500?—Yes, a little over £3,500 a year.

5838. I would like to go back on that question I asked you a moment ago—the views of your Department about having official stenographers in every Court. You gave us your views about the District Court. Have you any views about having stenographers in the High Courts?— The reason that we have stenographers in the Circuit Court is because the law says that appeals from the Circuit Court Judge must be heard on stenographer’s notes. We were obliged by law to provide the stenographers. If the law said that the appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court should be on stenographers’ notes, we would provide the stenographers, but until the law says that we would not.

5839. The point of view of your Department is that if the law says there must be a stenographer, you will appoint him? —Yes, or, rather, we provide a stenographer only when the appeal is, by statute, to be heard on notes taken by an official stenographer. The present position, as I understand it, is that when parties are in the High Court, and it is thought that there will probably be an appeal to the Supreme Court, the parties sometimes find it useful to provide a stenographer whose notes will assist in arguing the appeal. They find, however, that that is very expensive because the stenographer charges very high rates. It would suit that class of litigant much better to have a transcript of an official stenographer’s notes just as in the case of the Circuit Courts.

5840. Senator Comyn.—Have you a stenographer in the case of disputed wills?—I think not. There were two official stenographers attached to the High Court in Chancery cases. One of them has gone and the work is now done by a Civil Service shorthand typist.

5841. Under the old system, was there not an official stenographer who took a note in cases where a will was disputed? Have you that system now?—I do not think so, but I would not be positive.*

5842. Chairman.—Are copies of the transcript of the notes available at 2d. per folio?—Yes. The average cost to a person requiring a copy of the notes for an appeal is rather less than £1.

5843. Senator Comyn.—That is in the High Court?—No, in the Circuit Court. The average cost is less than £1.

5844. Chairman.—How many copies can be got by a person requiring a transcript?—Only one. The procedure is as follows: As soon as the notice of appeal is lodged, the County Registrar gets five typewritten copies made of the transcript of the shorthand notes. He sells one copy to the appellant at 2d. a folio and he sells another copy to the respondent at 2d. a folio. He then sends three copies to the High Court, two being for the use of the Judges hearing the appeal, and one for the Registrar.

5845. Those copies are supplied to the Appeal Tribunal at the cost of the State? —That is so. That is provided for in Order XIV, Rule 3, of the new High Court Rules made on 13th July, 1926.

5846. Are you aware that the cost of appeals from the Circuit Court is being attributed largely to the cost of stenographers’ notes in the case? Do you agree with that?—I would not think so, prima facie, seeing that a person can get a copy of the transcript for, on the average, £1. The only question is as regards what it might cost to make other copies. A litigant has not got to supply copies to the High Court because the High Court gets them from the Registrar. No doubt, copies may have to be made for counsel.

5847. Senator Comyn.—Might the explanation be that in the appeals actually contested the transcript would be long and, on the other hand, there might be a number of appeals in which the transcript of the note would be very short? Suppose there was a title case, involving the examination of a number of witnesses, and that was appealed, is it not quite conceivable that the note might be ten times as long as in other cases?—The only facts we have to go upon are that the average charge for a transcript is under £1.

5848. Chairman.—If the number of appeals increased for any reason, do you think that the present staff of stenographers would be adequate for the work? —No. The Circuit Court stenographers are hard worked at the present time. I would not like to add anything to their burden at all; it could not be done, I think.

5849. So if you had an increase in the number of appeals you would have to get an increased staff?—Yes. Even as it is, the stenographers are working at full pressure.

5850. If the present system of appeal in civil cases from the Circuit Court were to be abolished, you would have to retain the services of a number of stenographers for criminal work?—That is so, as long as the law remains that appeals in criminal cases are to be heard on the transcript of the shorthand notes by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

5851. How would that affect the cost to the State?—It would alter the whole system. At present take Circuit No. 6 consisting of five counties—Louth, Meath, Kildare, Wicklow and Wexford. The Judge goes around those counties, taking the stenographer with him. We pay the stenographer £310 per year for doing that work. Suppose you abolish the appeal on shorthand notes in civil cases and retain it only in criminal cases, it will mean a big difference because the criminal work forms a comparatively small part of the Judge’s business. A few days in each month would suffice for the criminal work. We could not then retain the whole-time stenographer because he would not be working more than one day a week and we probably would have to fall back on the part-time stenographer. It would reduce the cost but it would also probably reduce the efficiency of the stenographers.

5852. Deputy Little.—Do you find that the part-time stenographers are not so efficient?—I think the part-time stenographers are likely to be less efficient. They would not have the same incentive; they would not be working as whole-time officials; they would have other occupations and they could afford to be slack.

5853. Do you say that from your experience of the part-time men now employed?—I would not say that; I would not say it is an actual fact at present, but there would be that tendency.

5854. Senator Comyn.—A stenographer appointed to a Circuit Court for the hearing of criminal cases would only have twelve days work in each year in the case of the average Circuit Court Judge?

5855. Chairman.—If the present system of appeal were abolished would it not reduce the cost to the State?—Very much.

5856. That is, as regards stenographers? —Yes, it would reduce the cost of the stenographers. I should think it would reduce the cost by three-quarters.

5857. On the question of the County Registrars, what is the salary?—The salary varies a little. We have, outside the exceptional cases of Dublin and Cork, three grades—big counties, smaller counties and the smallest grade of county. There is very little difference in practice. The salaries range from £750 and bonus for the lowest county—at present the two combined amount to about £950—to £1,150 and bonus for Dublin. The average for the whole lot is about £1,000 a year.

5858. What are the qualifications for the office?—Eight years’ practice as a solicitor.

5859. Was it intended when the County Registrars were appointed that they should do work in the office of the same character as that done by the Master of the High Court?—I think, perhaps, the best answer to that is—if you look up the Court Officers Act of 1926, under which County Registrars are appointed, you will find that provision is made that certain semi-judicial duties may be assigned to the County Registrar. I think it is true to say that the rough idea, departmentally, of the County Registrar was that he was in much the same position as the Master of the High Court. He would deal with all sorts of semi-judicial business. He was not to be merely a clerk, but a trained lawyer, and he was to be utilised as such. Following the precedent of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace, his predecessor, he takes the accounts in equity cases, administration suits, etc. The Judge orders enquiries into a man’s estate, and the County Registrar prosecutes the enquiries and presents a certificate as to how the assets ought to be distributed. He is the Judge, in practice, for enquiry and Chancery purposes, one may say.

5860. Evidence has been given before the Committee of delay in the hearing of Circuit Court actions. Can you give us your views on that?—I have never heard any complaints about delay in hearing Circuit Court actions except in Dublin. and, to a lesser degree, in the Northern and Midland Circuits. At a certain period there were heavy arrears in Dublin. The Courts of Justice Act of 1924 started off on the assumption that the eight circuits as specified in the schedule to the Act were all equal as regards volume of work. That assumption was unfounded. The Dublin Circuit is about twice as heavy as any other circuit. It took some time to discover that, and, in the meantime, the Dublin Circuit was getting into arrears. In two other circuits there also was delay. In Circuit No. 3, comprising Donegal, Leitrim, Monaghan and Cavan, the work proved to be too heavy for one Judge. In Circuit No. 5, the work also proved too heavy for one Judge. As a result, temporary additional Judges were appointed from time to time, and finally two additional permanent Judges were appointed under a special Act of the Oireachtas, so that now there are eight circuits but ten Judges. As a result, everything is fairly clear at present, except in Judge Wakely’s circuit, which is still heavily in arrear. Singularly few, if any, complaints have been received. I do not believe there has been actually one complaint from Judge Wakely’s circuit, despite the admitted delays.

5861. Can you tell us if any steps are to be taken to deal with the arrears in Judge Wakely’s circuit?—We intended to send one of the two “movable” Judges to the help of Judge Wakely as soon as we could. Unfortunately, just about the same time, Judge Roche fell seriously ill, and for one reason or another Judge Wakely did not get the help he should have got. Now, I regret to say, he is ill himself.

5862. We have had evidence also that there was delay in the issuing of decrees in the Circuit Court?—I have never heard that at all. That is the first mention I have heard of it. It may be so, but there are no complaints in my Department about it.

5863. As a matter of fact, it was given in evidence before the Committee as recently as yesterday?—I have never heard of it. Nobody has complained about it to the Department of Justice.

5864. We also had complaints about the delay in the hearing of appeals from the Circuit Court?—That is common knowledge. I do not think that we have had many complaints to the Department, but it is common knowledge that there has been great delay in the hearing of Circuit Court appeals.

5865. Can you give any explanation of that?—The Courts of Justice Act of 1924 was drafted on the recommendations of an expert Committee. That was not a Departmental Committee. That Committee came to the conclusion that a certain number of High Court Judges could do the business. That number was appointed, but the expectations of the Committee were apparently not quite realised.

5866. Is it your opinion that if the present system of hearing appeals is to remain, the way to solve the existing difficulty is to appoint more High Court Judges?—It is the obvious way, but although it is the easy and obvious way, it is not a way that the Department of Finance would like or that my Department would like, if it could be avoided.

5867. In any event, I am sure your Department would agree that it is very undesirable that there should be any long delay in the hearing of appeals?—It is most undesirable.

5868. And your Department would agree that whatever steps require to be taken in order to prevent that should be taken?—Quite.

5869. Would you be in favour of putting any restriction on the right of appeal—stamp duty or anything of that sort?—Yes. There is this dilemma: it is unjust to restrict the right of appeal in the sense of not allowing people to appeal in genuine cases. On the other hand, if you give an absolutely unrestricted and cheap right of appeal, you will have people appealing who have no case. They will appeal merely for the purpose of delaying the final blow. By appealing they may be able to delay the coming of the under-sheriff for a year or so. The obvious remedy for that is to do what we do in the Film Censor’s office. If a person’s film is rejected by the Film Censor and he desires to appeal, he puts down a deposit of £5. If the appeal is rejected, the £5 is forfeited to the State. If he succeeds, he receives back his £5. I think something of that nature would be useful in the Circuit Court. The man who appeals takes up the time of two High Court Judges. I think a deposit of £10 would be reasonable, the deposit to be returnable to the appellant if successful.

5870. Would you have a flat rate of £10?—I should be inclined to have a flat rate.

5871. Does your Department consider that the number of Judges in the Supreme Court should be increased?—The difficulty I have in answering a question like that is that I can hardly say that there is any definite agreed Departmental view. The Minister, in consultation with the officials of the Department, has not formally decided that the Supreme Court should be strengthened. My personal opinion is that it ought to be strengthened.

5872. Has your Department any views upon the question of the salaries and pensions of District Justices? We had some evidence on that point?—As regards salaries, I do not think there has been any really serious complaint by anybody. I do not think that Justices have complained about their salaries and I do not think the public have complained that District Justices are being paid too much. The crux is in connection with the question of pensions. That is a very difficult question. There is no doubt that, for pension purposes, District Justices are treated at present as if they were civil servants. The argument against giving them any special pension rights is that professional men, such as engineers, in the Civil Service get no special pension rights. They come into the service at the age, say, of 40, with special professional training, but they get the pension calculated on actual service like the ordinary civil servant. If the District Justices were civil servants, the argument against increasing their pensions would be perfectly valid. There is no regulation as regards the giving of an increased pension to a member of the Civil Service, whether he comes into the service at the age of 19 or at the age of 40; whether he comes into the service at the age of 18 straight from school, or comes in at 40 as a qualified engineer, his pension depends on the actual years of service. District Justices say: “That is all very well, but we are not civil servants, we are Judges.” Circuit Court Judges get full pension after fifteen years’ service, and the claim of the District Justices is that they should get special pension terms as they are Judges.

5873. What is the view of your Department?—The last word in these matters is with the Minister for Finance. He has to consider the repercussions on other people of a decision of this kind and he has refused to concede the claim in this case.

5874. What is the reason for treating District Justices who are, after all, Judges, differently from all other Judges in the matter of pensions?—The Courts of Justice Act, 1924, makes the distinction.

5875. Whatever the position, would it be the view of your Department that it is desirable to put all the Judges in the same position as regards pension rights? —It is difficult for me to commit the Department on that point. All I can say is that I think the claim goes too far—that is, to put them all on the same basis. However anxious one might be to provide for the case of the District Justices, one would have to consider the age at which a man would be likely to come into the service. In the case of a High Court Judge, he does not come in, except on very rare occasions, until he is 45 years of age or over. District Justices should normally come in in the future quite young. Departmentally, we prefer to get men of about 30. That gives them 35 years of official life, almost enough to qualify for full pension.

5876. If District Justices come in about the age of 30, will you not be appointing men as Justices who will have comparatively little practical experience?— Amongst the best of our District Justices, are the youngest men who came in.

5877. Is it not desirable that before a Judge is appointed, he should have fairly considerable practical experience?—Quite.

5878. If you appointed District Justices at the age of 30, they would not have more than five or six years’ practical experience?—They might have up to eight years’ experience, as in the case of a barrister starting to practise at the age of 22 years. Then you must remember that the statutory qualification for a County Registrar, who is a very important official, and who is paid almost exactly the same salary as a District Justice, on the average, is only eight years’ practice as a solicitor.

5879. Do you think that the number of years’ experience which a person appointed as a Judge had before his appointment should be taken into consideration in fixing pension rights?—The answer to that is that that rule has been deliberately abolished in the Civil Service. It was once the rule in the Civil Service that men who entered the Service with professional training—engineers, doctors, and so on—got what were called “added years” for pension purposes. That rule was abolished by the British, and has never been in force in the Free State. Your question was: “Should not a man get credit for his preliminary professional training in connection with the fixing of pensions?” The answer is that he does not get such credit, as a matter of fact, in the Civil Service.

5880. The view put before us was that a Judge was not a civil servant?—That is the whole point. If a man is a civil servant, we say: “You cannot claim for professional knowledge.” But if he says he is a Judge, a different consideration arises.

5881. There was a rather important question raised here* regarding the area of jurisdiction of District Justices. The question was, whether in the event of a District Justice falling sick, a District Justice from a neighbouring county could be called in without being specially assigned by the Minister?—The law is that he must be specially assigned, but I have never known the least inconvenience to arise because of that. We can assign by wire. There is a certain difficulty in allowing Justices to function, without consulting the Government at all, in areas to which they are not assigned. It might give rise to a certain amount of trouble.

5882. Is there any good reason why a District Justice’s commission should not include every part of the Saorstát?—I do not think there is.

5883. Would it not simplify matters very much if that were so? A case was put to us in the following way: A District Justice is due to hold his Court in a particular town on a certain day and he is taken suddenly ill the night before, or for some other reason he is unable to attend. It is rather a hardship that the whole Court must be adjourned, whereas a wire might secure the services of a neighbouring District Justice if he had the right to go in and function there?—I do not think that, in practice, there is very much in that case. Even if the Government had not to be consulted at all and a neighbouring Justice were free to go into another district merely on invitation, it would frequently happen that he would be occupied with his own Court and that he would not be able to do so. The question is: Is your neighbouring Justice available? You must remember that District Justices are all fairly busy. If he is available, there is no difficulty. His colleague wires for him and wires to us “Please assign District Justice A.B. to my district,” and we wire back “Assigned.”

5884. You do not see any grave objection to having the District Justice’s commission running through the whole State? —No, but in practice it is convenient that each man should have a defined area of his own.

5885. On the question of suing for State debts through the Courts, with particular regard to land annuities, do you think that there could not be a better system evolved without the trouble and expense of going to Court?—I am greatly struck at what appears at first sight to be a tremendous waste of money, time, and energy involved in the procedure of recovering through the District or Circuit Court State debts which are admittedly due. Take the case of the Land Commission. They say: “Seán Murphy, of a given address, owes us money. He knows that he owes that money and he either cannot or will not pay it.” Take the amount of 13s., which is an amount frequently sued for. In order to get that 13s. which Seán Murphy knows he owes the Land Commission have to instruct the local State Solicitor, who must get a process with a stamp of 1s. 6d. on it and has to pay a summons server his fee for serving the defendant. Then he has to enter the case for hearing and attend himself in Court. That all costs money. It seems to me that it is not beyond human ingenuity to discover a process by which that could be avoided. After all, there is a difference between the State as a creditor and the ordinary man as a creditor. The State does not want to be rapacious or to collect debts that are not due. It seems to me to be possible to contrive some system by which a State debt could be recovered on a State certificate declaring that the money was due. Proper precautions should, however, be taken to ensure that where the State was making a mistake, as it does sometimes, the person who is alleged to owe the money should have some chance of questioning the claim. In the case of annuities, suppose the Land Commission serve a tenant with notice saying: “You are in our books for £3 1s. 6d. If you wish to test this and to prove that it is a mistake, go to the nearest District Court Clerk and say that you want it to be put in the list. If, however, you admit owing the money and do not want to run up costs, pay the amount, as otherwise we will proceed to execute as if this were a Court Order.”

5886. That is a summary of the scheme you suggest?—Yes.

5887. You are satisfied that if that were found to be workable, it would mean a saving to the annuitants and also to the State?—No doubt whatever. The annuitant would save the stamp on the Civil Bill, amounting to ⅙, the summons server’s fee, which varies, and the solicitor’s costs, which might be 13/- or so. Of course, you will appreciate that that system will only avoid preliminary costs: if the annuitant will not pay and the sheriff goes in, the annuitant will have to pay the latter’s costs.

5888. Senator Farren.—That follows after Court procedure?—Yes; you cannot avoid the Sheriff’s costs.

5889. Deputy Ruttledge.—The Sheriff’s duties, of course, will fall into the County Registrar?—As each County Sheriff dies, the County Registrar takes over the duties.

5890. What is the position in regard to the District Probate Registrar?—The Minister has power, partly under old statutes and partly under the Act of 1926, to do practically anything he likes with District Probate Registrars. He can vary their areas or abolish them altogether.

5891. You mentioned the costs in regard to the notes as being, on the average, £1 per transcript?—Yes.

5892. Do you know that they have gone up as high as £10?—Yes, I believe so. I sent a circular the other day to all the County Registrars asking them to give figures and receipts in regard to the copies of notes for one year. I asked them whether £1 would be a fair average cost of the notes for appeal, and the reply generally was “Yes,” or that the sum was rather less than that.

5893. I would be surprised at that?— Well, it has come to me definitely from so many different sources that I believe it is so, and the receipts which we get correspond with that figure.

5894. Senator Hooper.—Am I right in thinking that Deputy Ruttledge suggests that the cost to a particular litigant for the copy of shorthand notes from the County Registrar has risen in a particular case to £10?—I have no doubt that that is so.

Deputy Ruttledge.—Evidence has, in fact, been given to that effect.

5895. Senator Hooper.—And the County Registrar charged £10 for a copy of the notes?—It depends on how long the case lasts. The charge is 2d. per folio of 72 words.

5896. Deputy Ruttledge.—That would be for three or four days’ hearing?—Yes, the average cost is rather less than £1. There are thousands of cases where the cost is about 8/- or 10/-.

5897. Those would be small cases which were really questions of law?—Very possibly. There are a tremendous number of cases in which the cost is less than £1.

5898. Probably in the great majority of these cases where the costs have been small, they have not gone on at all?— Perhaps.

5899. You have referred to appeals from the Circuit Court to the High Court and the question of costs?—Yes.

5900. When the appellant serves a notice of appeal, is he not requested to lodge a certain sum?—Yes; that is not a penalty. It is merely a precaution to see that he pays for the notes.

5901. The solicitor on the other side, when served with notice of appeal, can send out his briefs and charge for them? —Yes.

5902. When a person serves notice of appeal, he has to apply for the notes?— Yes.

5903. He is then required by the County Registrar to lodge a certain sum of money?—Yes.

5904. And the solicitor on the other side is served with notice of appeal?—Yes.

5905. Is he not then and there entitled to send briefs to counsel as if the case were going on and to get the costs taxed on that basis?—I could not say definitely, but it does not seem to meet the point. My point is that a man who loses his appeal should pay the State, as well as his opponent, something for having taken up the time of the Judges. If a man appeals from a Circuit Court decision to the High Court and two High Court Judges say that it is a frivolous appeal I say that the appellant should not only pay costs to his opponent but should compensate the State.

5906. If it is frivolous, the Judges, having read the notes, can confine counsel to a few points, so that in that way there is little time wasted?—Yes, but that procedure is not always possible. People who lose appeals should pay a fairly high Court fee for having the appeal heard.

5907. They have to pay the costs of both sides?—Yes, but that is no good to the State.

5908. In the case of annuities, people know when the payments fall due. Do they not get, in addition, their final notice informing them that unless the amount is paid on a certain date it will be handed over to the Legal Department for collection?—I understood that that was abolished some time ago.

5909. Chairman.—There was some question about its being abolished?—I understood that it was abolished recently as an economy measure.

5910. Deputy Ruttledge.—If there is such a thing as a final notice, the annuitant has nothing to complain of as regards costs, because he has been sufficiently warned?—That is so, if you are dealing with people who are reasonable, cool and calculating, and who see that they are up against it and will have to pay, but you are not dealing with people like that.

5911. They get every opportunity to communicate with the Land Commission in order to get time?—No doubt. Of course, I do not want to say that my suggestion is practicable; I merely think that this Committee might consider it with a view to getting rid of costs in such cases.

5912. Taking the argument that it is only when they get civil bills that they really take notice, it might be said that if you sent them some sort of formal notice, as suggested, they would not mind it either until the Sheriff came in?—Yes, but if they acted on it they would save the cost of the solicitor, the civil bill, and the summons-server.

5913. That cost is comparatively small, compared with the cost of levying?—It is serious enough; it might amount to £1.

5914. There is a notice on the civil bill saying what the costs are?—Yes; these people get notice, but they ignore it in thousands of cases, and it is then necessary to go through an expensive process before distraining. That costs the State a lot of money, and it seems to serve no useful purpose.

5915. It does not entail the Land Commission in very much expense?—There must be a good deal of travelling, as State Solicitors have to attend small Courts.

5916. Is not that included in their salaries, and is not the State Solicitor allowed costs where he succeeds?—Yes. The costs in such cases will run from 10/-to £1. There seems to be no use in wasting a solicitor’s time in proving a thing that is not denied.

5917. Of course, the Judge has discretion?—That is a matter which the Committee perhaps might go into with the Land Commission rather than with me.

Chairman.—We will have a witness later from the Land Commission.

5918. Deputy Ruttledge.—The Judge or the District Justice has a discretion to decide how the decree is to be paid, either by instalments, or to give time, even though the Land Commission refuses to agree to that?—Yes.

5919. Senator Comyn.—Have you any record of the total costs which are collected by the various State Solicitors from tenant purchasers?—No. My Department has nothing to do with the State Solicitors. The State Solicitors are under the Attorney-General’s Department.

5920. It has been stated that in some counties the costs run up to £1,000 or £1,500?—I have heard the figure of £800 mentioned, but I have no official knowledge of it.

5921. That is Land Commission costs. As I understand the plan you have suggested, it involves the issue by some official in the Land Commission of a certificate of indebtedness or something like that?—Yes.

5922. Upon which the Sheriff can levy? —Precisely.

5923. In order to safeguard the annuitant, your proposal is that notice of that certificate should be sent to the tenant purchaser and that a certain time should be allowed to him to dispute that certificate?—Yes.

5924. And that in case of a dispute the matter should go then before the District Justice or the Circuit Court Judge or the High Court as the case might be?—Quite.

5925. And then that the District Justice, the Circuit Court Judge or the High Court, as the case might be, would have power to give time?—In fact it would come to this: that if the annuitant wanted to contest the certificate, the certificate would be valueless. The annuitant would say: “I am not accepting it. I am going into Court to contest it.”

5926. There is then the question that arises about the inconvenience caused when a District Justice gets suddenly ill. Have you any unattached District Justices?—Yes, two.

5927. Do you find that these two unattached District Justices are sufficient to meet the needs of the case at present? —Yes, generally, but it is a little awkward. In a case of illness, an unattached District Justice is not much good. The unattached District Justices were intended primarily to relieve the attached District Justices when they went on vacation. It was thought that with two unattached District Justices, each Justice could go on vacation and have his place taken by one of the unattached District Justices. The consequence is that our two unattached District Justices are booked up during the year and are frequently not available for unexpected emergencies such as illness.

5928. Would the matter not be met—I do not suggest it as a remedy—by having another unattached District Justice for cases of illness?—The trouble there would be that you would be paying a man a yearly salary and he might not get a month’s work in a year.

5929. Turning to the question of pensions of District Justices, as I understand, your submission is that a District Justice should be in the same position as any other professional man who is a civil servant?—The Department of Finance, which is the Department having complete control of pensions, takes the view that the District Justices should be treated like any other professional men in the public service—that is, like any other civil servant.

5930. I took down your words and I am going to suggest to you a distinction. What you said is that the man claimed for professional knowledge acquired before they got into the positions?—For the years spent in acquiring professional knowledge.

5931. What I am at is this: if they claim any pension rights in respect of professional knowledge acquired before their appointment, may I put it to you that they would fairly be entitled to some consideration in regard to professional experience, seeing that you will not allow them to be appointed unless they have eight years’ experience?—I think we must go back to the fundamental point. Take the case of a doctor. Supposing that it was a fixed rule that no doctor should be appointed, say, under the Local Government Department, unless he has ten years’ experience in a hospital, he would get no extra pension rights for that.

5932. Have you any such rule?—I do not think so, but I would not say definitely. In my experience of the Civil Service, I do not know of any rule that a professional man must have spent a definite number of years in the profession.

5933. Therefore, do you not see that there is a clear distinction between saying that a man cannot claim for professional knowledge and saying that a man can claim for professional knowledge plus eight years’ experience?—I would not like to go into that but take the doctor’s case again. Your point is correct, that there is no law requiring that he must have eight years’ experience but in fact he must have it.

5934. “In fact he must have it.” Why, so, when there is no law to that effect?— No body is going to appoint a doctor to any position if he has not considerable practice in the profession.

5935. Would it not be legal if it were done?—Perfectly.

5936. And, of course, you will not undertake to say that it is not done when legally it could be done? I do not wish to press you at all on this but we want to get the benefit of your experience?— Your point is that there is a distinction between a man who is required by statute to have a certain number of years’ experience and a man who is not required by statute to have that experience. I do not think that that would be a fair distinction. Supposing in the Courts of Justice Act of 1924, it was not specifically set out that District Justices must have six years’ experience, I think they would have exactly the same case they have now, no better and no worse, for pension rights.

5937. That may be so as regards the present Justices but, in the case of future appointments, if there was no professional experience required it is quite conceivable that a young man of 21 might be appointed a District Justice?—Quite.

5939. Senator Comyn.—You say that it is the desire in future to appoint men to the position of District Justice at about the age of 30?—Yes. But when I say that, you must realise the restrictions and limitations that are upon me. That is the view of the present Departmental heads.

5940. You want a man to be young and vigorous?—Yes.

5941. There is no doubt that at the present time you have men in the position of District Justices who are 60 or 65 years of age?—There is one of 65.

5942. What service has that man of 65?—About 6 years.

5943. On that basis, what pension would he be entitled to?—No pension at all if he were retired now.

5944. Take the case of a man of 65 years who is capable of doing his work, do you think it fair to him to send him out without a pension?—My answer to that is that if a man accepts a post knowing the conditions of it, if a man of 55, say, becomes a District Justice knowing that he is going to get a very small pension or no pension at all, that is his look-out. He cannot come along afterwards and say it is grossly unfair.

5945. There is another consideration. So far as that person himself is concerned there might be a great deal in what you say, but is there not a public point of view also to be considered, that a man who has filled the office of judge should not be placed in the position, after coming down from the Bench, of being practically a pauper?—I agree.

5946. Is that not a big consideration? —It is.

5947. Supposing now you had to decide between the two alternatives, and that you had a man to whom no pension could be given, who was in good health and capable of discharging his duty, do you not think it desirable to leave that man in the discharge of his duty until such time as he would be entitled to a pension?—That is exactly what we are doing. There is a special section in the Courts of Justice Act to the effect that a District Justice, who would not get a pension if he retired at the ordinary retiring age, may continue in office until he can get a pension. That power is being exercised.

5948. Pending the results of the deliberations of the Committee probably it should be continued?—There is only one case of a man who, if he retired in the ordinary course, would get no pension. That man’s service is being extended until he can earn a pension, though it may be a very small one.

5949. Would you not regard a small pension as being equivalent to none?— There is a difference between £2 a week and nothing.

5950. You spoke of a deposit of £5 in the case of an appeal by a person whose film was censored. Is that deposit forfeited in case the appeal is lost?— Yes.

5951. And forfeited to the State?— Yes.

5952. From your experience you know that there was under the old system a deposit of £5 in equity cases?—I do not know.

5953. These were not forfeited to the State. They were deposits that were security for costs. Do you suggest that the deposit with a notice of appeal should be a deposit by way of security for costs to the respondent, or would you claim that it should be a deposit forfeit so the State?—The latter.

5954. The reason you give is that the time of the Judges, who are paid by the State, is wasted in the hearing of the appeal?—Yes, partly that, and partly, I think, that the man should not take an appeal to the Circuit Court or High Court Judges unless he has a very fair chance. This would be a mild restraint.

5955. Following that up, I ask this question, because I know you will give the most intelligent answer that I am likely to get: What about a man who brings an action without any reasonable prospect of success; would you charge him a court fee?—I do not quite follow you.

5956. You say a man brings an appeal without any reasonable prospect of success. I put a case, which more frequently occurs, of a man instituting an action without much ground, which action is dismissed. At the same time, it occupied the time of the Court. Would you charge him a Court fee?—I would.

5957. Curiously enough, that appears to have been the original idea when Judges received very small standing salaries and were paid by fees. That was the custom for three or four hundred years, and had to be abandoned?—It was a very bad practice, but it does not really bear upon my suggestion. I do not suggest that Judges should be paid by fees.

5958. Another point. Would you say that appeals from the Circuit Court to the High Court should get precedence?—Yes, over all but urgent High Court business.

5959. I am glad you make that exception, because, of course, in the case of Habeas Corpus or a Writ of Prohibition or Mandamus it would be different. But is it not conceivable that there may be very urgent High Court cases, involving large sums, that would not come within any of those categories?—That is what I mean when I say “except urgent business.” If anyone goes to the High Court and says, “I know there are fifty Circuit Court cases waiting, but I have a very urgent case,” that is what I mean.

5960. You would not have it as a general rule, but you would make a recommendation?—Yes.

5961. In regard to stenographers, you have given some figures. You tell us that the salaries of the stenographers amount to £3,415 and the expenses to £650?— That is quite right.

5962. Do these expenses include subsistence allowance?—Yes.

5963. What is the daily subsistence allowance?—I am afraid I cannot tell at the moment.*

5964. It seems to be very small?—If I travel, I am allowed 16/- for every night I am from home.

5965. Could there be a mistake as to the subsistence figure here?—No, I am sure there is not.

5966. The individual salary of £310 and a subsistence allowance of 15/- or 16/- a day?—No, not 15/-, something more like 10/-.

5967. I imagine the stenographers are in Court about 150 or 200 days in the year?—That is right.

5968. And, therefore, their subsistence would mean something that would run into twenty weeks or more?—A man is not paid any subsistence allowance unless he is away from home for ten hours, and then only three and fourpence. He has to be away all night to get 10/-. Three stenographers work constantly in Dublin. None of these draw a penny for travelling or subsistence allowance.

The Committee adjourned at 1.45 p.m. until Wednesday, 9th instant.

* Note.—A stenographer is usually employed at the hearing of a Probate action in the High Court, but he is not an official stenographer and is not paid out of public monies.

* Ques. 3832, 3865.

* Note.—It is 10/- a night: ¾ for day absences exceeding ten hours.