Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 9 JUNE 1892

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

296 C1·iminal Law Amendment Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

Thu,·sdcty, !J June, 1892.

Questions.-Formal :Uotion.-Brands Act of 1872 Amend­ment Dill: Third rpading.-Small Debts Court Bill: Committee. -Relationships between Judges and Counsel.- Adjournment.- Criminal Law Amend­ment lJill : Third rf'ading.-Copyright (Fine Arts) RP.~istration llill: First reading.-::\farsupials De~ struction Bill: First reading.-Adjournment.

Tlw SPEAKER took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

QUESTIONS. The HoN. ,J. R. DIOKSON asked the Chief

Secretary-1Vill tht: Governmrnt take into consideration and

submit to the House thia session a measure dealing lrit.h the abolition, suspension, or reduction of payment to membcn:s of the Legislative Assembly, so as to relieve the countl-y of the bm·then of such expenditure?

The COLONIAL TREASURER (Hon. Sir T. Mcilwraith), for the Chief Secretary, replied-

The qur ,.;tion is under the consideration of the Government, and their decision will be announced to the IIouse at an early date.

Mr. HYNE asked the Secretary for Rail­ways-

Is the Government prcparecl to undertake ftuther railway construction in any district, providing interest is guaranteed for the outlay?

Small Debts Court Bill. [9 jUNE.] Small Debts Court Bilt.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS (Hon. T. 0. Unmack) replied-

The Government are not in a JIOSition at the present time to entertain any prvposalsfor railway construction which necessitate the expenditure of public funds, and appltcations for further loans to the London market.

Mr. HYNE asked the Colonial Secretary-1Vhat amount has been expended towards affording

relief to the unemployed in Brisbane for the last six months, and what amount is now being spent weekly?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY (Hon. H. Tozer) replied-

The amount expended towards affording relief to the unemployed in Brisbane during the six months ending the 31st May, 1892, is £2,933 16s. 5d., and the amount expended for that purpose during the week ending 6th June instant is £165 6s. 1d., apportioned as follows:­Groceries, £115 14•. 2d.; beef, £49 lls. lld. The total expenditure for the whole colo11y from the 1st July, 1891, to date, was £1,277 17s. 4d., of which £3,68:1 5s. 1d. was for relief in Brisbane.

FORMAL MOTION. The following formal motion. was agreed to :­By Mr. BLACK-That there be laid upon the table of the House a

return showing the progress of the various agricultural settlements known as village settlements throughout the colony.

BRANDS ACT OF 1872 AMENDMENT BILL.

THIRD READING. On the motion of the COLONIAL SECRE­

TARY, this Bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to be returned to the Legislative Council, by message in the usual form.

SMALL DEBTS COURT BILL. Mr. PO\VERS said: Mr. Speaker,-I move

that you do now leave the chair. Question put and passed.

CoM~IITTEE. Preamble postponed. On clause 1, as follows :-"The Governor in Council may proclaim any petty

sessions district or any IJortion of any sncll district to be a metropolitan petty sessions district/'

Mr. POWERS said that a long time had elapsed since the second reading of the Bill, and some information was then asked about the clause, which really had to be debated with clause 2, because, unlE:;s hon. members intended to pass clause 2, it was hardly worth while passing clause 1, that was with the view of having metropolitan small debts court or courts in which police magistrates would have jurisdiction up to £100. That meant, that in the district of Brisbane, Rockhampton, or any place where the Governor in Council for the time being thought the police magistrate was capable of dealing with cases up to £100, the Governor in Council might appoint that place ametropolitansmall debts court. As far as the justices were concerned, they would only have the same jurisdiction as now; but the police magistrates would have the extended jurisdiction. The proposal was not altogether an innovation. In South Australia the jurisdiction had been increased up to £490 for stip'endiary magistrates. In that case qualified men were appointed to stipendiary positions, and the system had been found to work beneficially. When a Royal Com­mission, after the system had been in force for twenty years, was appointed to inquire into it, they suggested the extension up to £490 ; it started limited to £100. The clause now before the Committee was to give power to the Governor in Council, if they thought a police magistrate was competent to deal with larger cases, to extend his jurisdiction up to £100; and

the object was to give persons in simple cases the simplest, speediest, and least expansive way of getting justice. At present in those cases persons were forced· into the more expensive courts, because they could not get their remedy in the smaller courts. If the Government could not acknowledge that the time had come to pass such a clause, they might give some reason. If they were opposed to the clause they would not put it into force, even though the Bill was pac;sed ; still, he believed the clause was a good one. In New Zealand the jurisdiction of the petty debts courts had been extended to £50 ; and he was satisfied, from the reports of the working of those courts where the jurisdiction had been extended, that the power to proclaim any petty sessions district or any portion of such district to be a metropolitan petty sessions district would he a good one. He did not think anyone in Brisbane, Rockhampton, or any other large centre would fear any injustice from the jurisdiction of police magistrates being extended in the manner pro­posed, because the appeal from a police magistrate was so easy that if any mistake was mad'l it could easily be rectified, whereas in the higher courts a man did not know what the expense would be. He believed the present proposal would be a good thing for the country ; it would lessen legal expenses and provide a speedy and less expensive way of recovering debts. There­fore he moved that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said the matter was one to which he particularly desired to call the attention of the Committee. It was a very important partoftheBill,and one to which he could not give his support personally, nor could the Government render any assistance in extend· ing at present the jurisdiction of the small debts court from £30 to £100. Though they were only dealing with clause 1, as the hon. member had rightly said, they were practically discussing the question whether they would or would not extend the powers of police magistrates, in certain districts to be set apart by the Governor in Council, from £30 to £100. Manyhon. members might not have been present at the second reading of the Bill, and he would draw their attention to the facu that "trial by jury" in civil cases, as well as in criminal cases, was a right which could not be lightly regarded. The present proposal was to take away at the caprice of a plaintiff the right of any person to have a jury in a matter involving any amount up to £100. That was a matter to be thoroughly considered by hon. members, because there were many people to whom £DO or £100 at the present time would be a very serious matter. The question was whether Queensl!tnd had police magistrates of such legal standing that they could be entrusted with the power of deciding cases up to £100. His expe­rience was that they had not that class of men, and the Government would have to set about finding them-they would most probably have to be taken from the legal profession-to exercise the extended powers which the hon. member proposed to confer on them. It might be said that in the metropolitan courts of petty sessions the police magistrates were qualified to do the work thrown upon them up to £100, but he was •orry to say that his experience recently, even of metropolitan courts, was against that. At one of the metropolitan courts of petty sessions within the last three months a magistrate was called upon to decide the question of a pro­missory note under £30, p:utly written and partly in figures. The magistrate decided that on the portion which appeared in figures he could not give a verdict. If a magistrate could make such a blunder right on the threshold of justice it would be a difficult matter at present to entrust magistrates with such large power up to £100.

298 Small Debts Ouurt Bill. [A.SSEM.BLY.] Small Debts Court Bill.

The first question, therefore, the Committee had to decide was whether they were going to deprive a defendant of the right which he now had to have his case tried by a jury, because the clause would enable a plaintiff to bring his action in one of the metropolitan courts of petty sessions instead of in the District Court ? Were they going to take him away from the District Court whieh sat in metropolitan districts, and could be made to sit oftener if occasion required? The proceedings in that court; were not very expensive. That was one objection he had to increasing the jurisdiction of small debts courts to £100. The hon. member stated that an appeal from the small debts court was easy. But there was no right of appeal on the facts, the verdict of the magistrates on the facts was final. The whole question might be one of fact; and directly the magistrate gave his decision on the facts the case would be at an encl. Although the superior court might set his judgment right on a question of law, his finding on the facts was final. Practically, therefore, the magistrate was the sole arbiter on questions of fact. There were many difficult questions to decide before they could consent to the proposed change, and he thought they would best study the convenience of the public by leaving the jmisdiction of the small debts courts at£30asitwas at present. He did not see any reason why they should increase the ju ·isdiction of those courts at the pre"en t moment, especially when they considered the difficulty there would be in making any changes in the police magistrate8. And, really, there was a great deal of uncertainty in the whole matter. For instance, one man might have his cause of action just outside a metropolitan petty sessions district, and he would have to bring his case in the Dis­trict Court ; while a man inside that district might have to go into the small debts court, or the DiRtrict Court, entirely at the caprice of plaintiff. If a man brought an action for slander, which might involve very serious h<snes besides the damages sued for, and the cause of action 'arose inside a metro­politan district, he could go to the small debts court, but if it arose outside that district he would have to go to another tribunal. Looking at the proposal, therefore. as a matter of convenience he could not, with his professional experience, which was pretty extensive in the colony, support the clause, nor could he advise the Committee to support i:t. He would sooner see the District Courts sit oftener than make the proposed change, and he hoped hon. members would consider ~he matter very carefully before they gave that increased jurisdiction to men who had never had any professional training.

Mr. POWERS said before any other hon. member spoke on the subject he would like to point out that suitors could appeal from the decision of the justice on questions of fact as well as on questions of law. The Small Debts Court Act provided that-

~~ If either party to any cause heard in any of the said courts of petty sessions in ,,rhich the judgment of the court on the sum sued for shall a1nount to the sum of ten pounds or upwards shall be dissatisfied with the determination or direction of the court, such party may appeal to the nearest District Court which shall be held within the district in which the said coUl't of petty sessions shall be situate."

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: Only on a question of law.

Mr. POWERS said if the hon. gentleman looked at the provision he would see that the appeal was not confined to questions of law. As to the objection which had been raised to doing away with the right of trial by jury, it was a wonder that that had not been urged against giving magistrates jurisdiction up to .£30. The proposal

to increase their jurisdiction to .£100 was not a new experiment which had not been tried elsewhere. It was an experiment which had been found to work very well in colonies similar to Queensland. The strongest argument which had ?een us~d agccinst the proposal was that the police magis­trates of this colony were not to be entrusted with that increased jurisdiction. If that was so, then the Governor in Council would not exercise the power given to them by the clause. The whole object of the clause was to enable persons to get their remedies in the smaller courts, and if the decision of the magis­trate on a question of fact or question of law was not· satisfactory to either party they could appeal. He knew that, unless the decision on a question of fact was glaringly con­trary to the evidence, the judges generally upheld the decision of the justices, but decisions were frequently upset on questions of fact.

The COLONIAL SECRB~TARY said he knew of no machinery by which the decisions of small debts courts on questions of fact could be reviewed by the superior courts, nor had he ever heard of any case in which the judges of the superior courts had ever taken fresh evidence on questions of fact.

Mr. POWERS: They can. The COLONIAL SECRETARY said they

might have the power to do so, but practically it was impossible to exercise that power.

Mr. DRAKE: They send the cases back to the magistrates.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said the case was sent back to be tried in the same court which had tried the case originally. His experience for a number of years was that whenever a magistrate decided a question of fact, that decision was always upheld by the judg!'s, who said that the magistrates, who saw the witnesses and heard them, were better judges on the questions of fact than they were. He had never known a case to be reversed on a question of fact but cases bad been reversed on questions of iaw. Although the court might have the power to review questions of fact, practically that power was not exercised. .

Mr. POWERS said that at the last District Court there was an appeal from the police magistrate on no o~her. ground than th~ facts, and the judge, considermg that the verdwt was not in accordance with what he thought were the facts, upset the decision.

Mr. DRAKE said he understood the hon. member for Burrum intended to make an altera­tion in clause 2. On the second reading of the Bill the hon. member stated that it was his intention to provide that a police magistrate should always decide in cases above £30. If the hon. member looked at the clause he would see that it did not make it absolutely certain that stipendiary magistrates should pi·eside in such cases· there was nothing in the clause to prevent ordinary justices from adjudicating, and he would like to know whether the hon. memb~r intended to propose any alteration in clause 2?

Mr. POWERS said he intended to prop?se an alteration. As he said on the second readmg of the Bill he proposed to amend the 2nd paragraph of clause 2 so as to read ".where t~e debt or demand exceeds £30 a police magis­trate shall preside, and the decision of the police magistrate presiding a~ the hearing shall be the judgment of the court. '

Mr. DRAKE said that with respect to the objection raised bv the Colonial Secretary that under the proposed amendment of !he law suitors for an amount over .£30 might be depri.ved of the righ! of having their . cases tried by a jury, and might be at a d1sadvantage

Small D~bts Court Bill. [9 J'UNE.] $mall Debts Court Bill. 299

thereby, he might point out that at the present time not only police magistrates, but local justices, had very large powers indeed with respect to the liberty of the subject. They could try criminal matters and send a man to gaol for six months, and if they could be trusted with such a power as that they might safely be trusted to try cases involving any sum up to £100.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said the hon. member made no provision in the Bill by which a number of local justicE>~ might not overrule the decision of a police magistrate. In answer to the hon. member for Enoggera, he would remind him that the local magistrates could sit in such cases unless some clause was inserted to prevent them doing so. Those were some of the difficulties in the way of the proposed amendment.

Mr. POWERS said that clause 2 provided that the decision of the police magistrate presid­ing at the hearing sh•mld be the judgment of the court, and if it was amended as he desired, to provide that such cases should be tried by a police magistrate, the difficulty mentioned by the hon. gentleman would be met.

Mr. SAYERS said be did not intend to sup­port the clause giving such power to police magistrates. They knew well that there were many police magistrates in the colony who had no more experience than many ordinary justices of the peace. They had some police magistrates who a few years ago followed very different occupations. They had very likely been failures at those occupations, and through influence and what not, they were now police magistrates of the colony ; yet the hon. member proposed that their decisions in those cases should be the final judgment.

Mr. POWERS: No. There is an appe:tl. Mr. SAYEHS said there might be five local

justices on the bench, each of whom might have more legal and business experience than the police magistrate had, and their decision would have to go for nothing in a ca8e if the police magistrate did not agree with it. The proposal was simply laughable and absurd. Very often a police magistrate was away for a week or a fortnight from his court, and if he had to preside at such cases they would have to be held over from day to day until he could attend. No doubt there were manY members who knew police magistrates who had not h:tlf the legal know ledge or business training of many justices of the peace, and it was absurd to put such men in a position where they could say to those local justices, "I am the great I Am, and no matter what you say I am the judge of the facts and everything else."

Mr. POWERS said there might be something in the hon. m em her's argument if the Bill pro­posed that that power should be given to police magistrates all over the colony. The Bill did not pr,ipose any such thing, but only that the Governor in Council might appoint metropolitan petty sessions districts in charge of police magistrates, who in their opinion might be entrusted with such powers. Then, as to the loeal justices bein~ overruled, the police magis­trates would appomt certain days for the trial of those cases, and the local justices would not attend at the hearings at all unless for amuse· ment or to assist the police magistrate. Those powers would only be given to police magistrates who were capable of being entrusted with them ; the arrangement would be a great convenience to people in those districts who would like to be relieved of the expense of going to the higher courts.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN: How would the Ministry know the capabilities of the magistrates without putting them through an examination ?

Mr. PO"\VERS said they must know some­thing of their capabilities when they appointed them.· He had had communications from busi­ness firms approving of the proposal, as the addi­tional expense and delay of the present system was the great difficulty. "\Vhen a writ was issued in the Supreme or District Court there might be a delay of two or three months; and when he asked why they did not issue a summons for speedy judgment, the answer was "Oh, no, they would enter a defence to that, then there would be more delay." The only question was whether the present and future Governments might be trtMted to appoint capable police magistrates to exercise the extended powers proposed by the Bill. If they could not find a police magistrate in the colony who in their opinion could be trusted with jurisdiction upon cases involving £50 or £100, or whatever might be provided by the 2nd clause, then that part of the Bill would not come into force.

Mr. SAYERS said he saw other difficulties in the way. Police magistrates were often shifted from one town to another, and supposing the Governor in Council thought they had a capable police maaistrate in Charters Towers, Townsville, Rockhampton, or auy other place, and gave him the jurisdiction proposed in the Bill, and then a vacancy or a death occurred amongst the police magistrates and they could not find a capable man to put in charge of that district, when the changes were made they would have to say to the people of that di8trict : _., " When we gave you this privilege we hact a good man in charge here; but we cannot find another capable man at present, and so the privilege will have to be taken from you." Someone, either the Government or the new police magis­trate, would be the laughing-stock of the people in such a case. Unless the Government were satisfied that thev had a sufficient number of police magistrates who might be ent~usted with such powers, he did not think the clause should be allowed to go.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said hon. members should have the experience of legal members on the matter, and he might mention that at the present time, where the parties to 8,

suit consented, the jurisdiction of the magistrates was extended to cases involving as much as £50. The question arose whether heretofore the public hadshownanydesire'tohave the jurisdiction of the small debts courts extended from £30 even np to £50? The best evidence on that point would be the experience of legal members as to the number of times they had known persons who were parties to a suit consent to the extended jurisdic­tion of the court. He had only known two such instances in all his experience.

Mr. HYNE : There is not one suitor in a hundred who knows that can be done.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said it could be done where the plaintiff and defendant agreed. He saw a lot of difficulties in the way of making a police magistrate alone the arbitrator in such cases. J<'or instance, supposing a man sued for a debt of £2!), the case could be tried before local justices; but if the defendant entered a set-off or counter claim of £31 the justices could not try the case ; the police magistrate only could try it under the Bill, so that in every instance a defendant by entering a counter claim like that could oust the jurisdiction of the local justices and insist upon the judgment of the police magistrate. He thought the proposal was not a step in advance of what already existed. He did not see how it would work ; therefore he could not as a legal member recommend the Committee to pass it, and he could not consent to it.

300 Small Debts Court Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Small IJebts Oo1wt Bill.

Mr. POWERS said of course objections could be raised to any proposal. Re would point out that in South Australia the jurisdiction of or?-inary justice~ was limited to £30, bub the stipendiary magistrates dealt with cases up to £490. That system had been in force there for twenty-five' years, and had worked well; either party c?uld have a jury. If anyone in South Australia were asked whether the Act there which gave that jurisdiction should be repealed, he ~~uld say, "No; .extend it if you like, because It IS a great convemence to the public." The fact that lt had been found to work well there for so long a time ought to be sufficient to assure the Committee that it would be safe to pass such a law.

Mr. O'SULLIYAN said the little experience he had had of police magistrates in the colony would not induce him to support the clause. All l_10n. members kne'y pretty well how police magistrates were appomted. They were gener­ally broken-down squatters, or thirty-first cousins of .,some member of the Ministry by w~om they were appointed. Could anyone pomt to half a dozen police magistrates in the colony who had been appointed on their merits?

Mr. PATTISON: Yes. Mr. O'SULLIV AN said possibly the hon.

member might not know all the police magis­trates.

Mr. P A rTISON: I know them quite as well as you do.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN said perhaps the hon. member 12new more about them than he did. He (:\fr. O'Sullivan) knew a good many Southern police magistrates ; he did not pretend to know anything of those who had been appointed to Hockhampton. He did not pretend to know anything about Rockhampton, except the enor­mous amount of money that had been laid out on the river there. If the hon. member who had inter­rnpted him wished it, he (Mr. O'Sullivan) could mention names of police magistrates to whom he referred, but that would not be a nice thing to do. . Did the h?n. member ever hear of a police magistrate fallmg asleep on the bench while a case was going on?

Mr. BLACK: And jndges, too. Mr. O'SULLIV AN said he did not see any­

thi~Jg satisfactory i_n the proposal. Although a pohce magistrate might have several magistrates whose knowledge and experience were quite as great as his own sitting alongside him on the bench, yet his decision was to be final. There were some police magistrates he would not trust very far on the bench. Not that able men could not be got in the colony for thao position. He be!ieyed that th:y co';lld, bnt they were never appomted on the1r ments. They were appointed becttuse they were relatives or near friends of some Minister of the day, whether they had the necessary ability or not. Re should, therefore, oppose the clause.

Mr. G ANN ON said he had listened attentively and had been very much enlightened by the remarks of legal members upon various matters. He had been very much inclined to support the hon. member for Burrum, Mr. Powers, in passing the Bill, but after hearing the remarks of the Colonial Secretary he was rather inclined to take that hon. gentleman's view. Therefore he thought they should have to put the hon. mem­ber for Burrum out of court so far as the pro­posed jurisdiction was concerned. Following up what the hon. member for Stanley had stated, he might say that he was once the victim of a police magistrate's derelic­tion of duty. Re had a case before a court in a country town respecting the possession of a horse, and unfortunately for him the police magistrate had evidently been "seeing a man·"

the night before, for he went asleep while the case was being heard, and on waking up he gave a verdict against him (Mr. Gannon). The result was that the defendant was to keep possession of the horse, but so little did he (Mr.'· Gannon) think of the verdict that he went and took possession of the horse, and nobody took any action against him for doing so. He knew that the police magistrate could not do any­thing, 1 because he was asleep during the hearing of the evidence, and wakened up to give his verdict. He would be sorry to mention that gentleman's name, because he had passed away to the "vastma.iority"; and he was a good man, but unfortunately made a mistake on that occasion. As the whole ques­tion bad cropped up, why not let them try and simplify the courts? Let them, for instance, give the petty debts court jurisdiction up to £100, and make all suitors in cases up to that amount have them tried in that court. Let all ca"es between £100 and £1,000 be tried in the District Courts. Suitors could not get better law than they got in the District Courts. The judges there were painstaking, and gave common-sense decisions. Then let all cases over £1,000 be tried irr the Supreme Court. In that way they would simplify matters very much, and make a large reduction in the cost of legal machinery. The question was one of importance, and was well worthy of consideration. They would not require nearly so many judges as they did now, and things would be much more satisfactory.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN: We have too many Acts. Mr. GANNON said they had so many Acts on

the statute-book that it was impossible for one man out of a hundred, except members of the legal profession, to understand the laws they had to work under.

Mr. POWERS said although the hon, member had spoken against the clause, yet it contained the only way by which he could get what he said he desired.

Mr. GANNON: No. Mr. POWERS said evidently the hon. member

did not understand the Bill, because the clause proposed the first step necessary to give jurisdic­tion up to £100 in the small debts court. That was what he (wir. Powers) was aiming at-to give larger jurisdiction to the smaller courts, because then they would be able to prevent small cases being taken into the higher courts.

Mr. GANNON said he was quite wi!Hng to give larger jurisdiction to the smaller courts, but they were getting so many Acts on the statute­book that it was almost impossible for anyone to understand the laws under which they were living.

Mr. DRAKE said he thought they must go to work on the supposition that all police magis­trates wonld be men who knew their business. Stipendiary magistrates should in all cases be professional men, and then there would be no risk in giving them the enlarged jurisdiction proposed. He should like to ask the hon. member for Burrum if he knew how many courts there were in South Australia which had jurisdiction up to £490, and whether they existEd anywhere outside Adelaide?

Mr. POWERS: Yes. Mr. DRAKE said he should like to know how

many stipendiary magistrates there were there. Speaking from recollection he believed that all those who had jurisdiction up to £490 were professional men.

Mr. POWEHS said the stipendiary magis­trates in South Australia had jurisdiction over very large areas. As far as he could remember, there were twenty-six stipendiary magistrates m South Australia who had jurisdiction up to £490.

Small Debts Court Bill. (9 JUNE,] Small Debts Court Bill. SOl

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said it was absolutely necessary for a judge to possess cer­tain legal attainments, and if the clause passed it would be necessary to insert another clause in the Bill providing that stipendiary magistrates appointed to certain di,tricts should possess those qualifications. The police magistrates of the colony-a great majority of them-had had no professional training. They were remarkably good judges of fact, lmt it was extremely doubtful whether they were properly qualified to decide intricate questions of law which might be involved in an action up to £100. They were men who had risen by merit from the position probably of an ordinary country police magistrate, and had been gradually pro­moted to the metropolis, or other large centres of population, but they had never had any legal training. Many intricate questions might be involved in an action up to £100. Take, for instance, an action for slander involving £100. That might involve the character of a person, and the magistrate might have the determina­tion of it. If the colony was in such a flourish­ing condition that it could afford to appoint five or six professional st,ipendiary magistrates, in addition to the existing judicial body, the pro­posal might be good; but as the colony was at present situa.ted he could not see that it was possible to work a jurisdiction from £30 to £100, especially in view of the fact that the public were the best jndgns of it, and that for the last twenty years, although they had had the option of trying cases in the. small debts courts from £30 to £50, they had never chosen to do so.

The HoN. P. PERKINS said it was quite refreshing to hear the Colonial Secretary suggest­ing that there should be five or six more legal appointments made. The hon. gentleman also said that none of the present police magistrates could decide intricate questions of law involved in cases up to £100. In his opinion there were

.,many men who had never been in a bwyer's office who would give the parties to a suit more justice than a trained lawyer, and with whose decision both parties would be more satisfied afterwards. The lawyers sent the unfor­tunate litigants from one court to another to be plucked. That had been his experience, and he had paid a good many lawyers' bills in his time. If a man was fit to decide a £30 case he was fit to decide a £100 case. If more care was exercised in the selection of police magistrales it would not be necessary to look abroad for professional men. The Huuse OUI;(ht to take the entire matter of the administration of the law into its own hands. They all knew what scandalous things had been going on in the community-scandalous things which were talked about in the other colonies. There was not business for one-half the lawyers in the colony at the present time, and the result of making new legal appointments would be that they would come in in swarms. He hoped that before the end of the session the House would take the matter into its own hands. Instead of bringing in a lot of little legal Bills, the existing Acts ought to be codified. The country could not afford the immense expense it was at in the administration of the law. 'rhe people were over-judged; they got too much law. If the fi\•e or six suggested new appointments were made there would be no end to it. 'rhe colony would fill with attorneys, and it woulrl be useless for anyone else to try to live. It would be advisable to burke the Bill now before the Committee. He wondered at the Colonial Secretary opposing it now, after he had allowed the second reading to paso.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY ; It was opposed then.

The HoN. P. PERKIXS : Surely, if the hon. gentleman had chosen he could have prevented the second reading of the Bill.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: There are some good clauses in it.

The Hox. P. PERKINS said he did not think they wanted any more Bills of the kind. \V hat they wanted was the codification of the existing law, so that men could find out what they wanted to know and settle their dispute~ without being obliged to have recourse to a lawyer. At present nothing could be done without an attorney. The country was being humbugged and imposed upon by the lawyer;, and he would again urge the House to grapple with the question, to stop the game, and to teach the lawyers that the people would not be swindled any longer.

Mr. POWEHS said there was just one quE>.stion raised by the Colonia] Secretary that he would reply to. The hon. gentleman askf\d in how many case.e had person; agreed to the E'xtended jurisdic­tion up to £50. If a person went into the District Court or Supreme Court and got a verdict of £30, he got costs ; but if he went to the petty debts court he got only 30s. costs. The solicitor always went for the court that paid best and gave the speediest remedy. If extended jurisdiction was given there would be no exnuse for goin~ into the higher court. By giving extended jurisdiction a suitor had not to ask consent to go into court. He issued the summons, ami obtained speedy redress. In the District Courts now actions up to £30 were really shut out, because the judges were refusing costs in such cases. The number of such cases brought during the present year before the District Courts would compare very favour­ably with the number brought previous to passing the District Courts Act Amendment Act. He would like to do what the hon. member for Cambooya suggested, take the whole matter in hand. He had attempted that once, but he was told he was taking up all the t1me of private members. He was now proceeding by steps, and if the Committee blocked him he could not help it. If the decision was against him on that clause, he must go on with the rest of the Bill. He was satis­fied that the only way in which reform would be accomplished was by taking those steps gradually.

Mr. DRAKE said he would point out that in the case of the courts having extended juris­diction in South "Australia the cases were frequently decided by juries.

Mr. POWERS : I mentioned that. Mr. DRAKE said the common jury consisted

of four persons, the majority of whom decided. The special jury consisted of six persons, and the finding of three carried a verdict. He saw that in South Australia there were seven stipendiary magistrates, with a salary of about £500 a year, but he did not know whether they were profes­sional men or not.

Mr. P ATTISON said the hon. member for Stanley had spoken disrespectfully of the police magistrates of the colony, and he had made an interjection which did not appear to be pleasing to the hon. member, but when he heard from the lips of the Colonial Secretary the mean opinion he had of police magistrates, he thought it was about time he rose to enter his protest.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY; I only referred to their legal capacity.

·Mr. PATTISON said he did not know what the hon. gentleman referred to. He could only take the language as meaning what it conveyed to his mind-namely, that the police magistrates of this colony-saving a few-were an incom­petent body of men, although they might be trusted with jurisdiction up to £30. Beyond that the hon. gentleman said they could not be trusted, .Now, thflt was a serious charge

302 Small Debt8 Court Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Small Debt8 Court Bill.

to make against a respectable body of men. The hon. member for Stanley said the police magistrates were chiefly broken-down squatters; but even if that was the case they were nevertheless men of education and business ability. Although those men had been failures in their own line of life, it did not necessarily follow that they were incompetent men, nor did the hon. member for Stanley intend to convey that they were incompetent men. As far as he (Mr. Pattison) could understand the measure he agreed with it. Possibly they might have men appointed to the position of police magistrate

'who had a legal training, but not at the paltry salaries of £400 or £500 a year. ·

The SECRETARY FOR MINES (Hon. W. 0. Hodgkinson): You would get the legal failures.

Mr. P ATTISON said he agreed with the hon. gentleman. 'rhey might have men appointed who had a little legal knowledge, but who were totally deficient of a greater necessity, which was common sense. He was very much pained to hear the Colonial Secretary say what he had said, because his words carried weight. In his experience, in the ranks of the Queensland police magistrates they had men of great aLility. How often did they see the decisions of the police magistrates upheld, and how seldom the reveroe? He believed that having a juris­diction up to £30, as at present, they adminis­tered the law fairly well. The hon. member for Burrum professed to be a legal reformer, but it appeared to him that every suggestion made bv that hon. member was met by the legal element in the House, no matter how good the suggestion might be, in a spirit of hostility. They were not met in the generous spirit they should be. He thought the Bill introduced by the hon. member was a step in the right direction, because it tended to cheapen law. Whether it stirred up the hostility of the legal members or not he did not know, but it ap­peared to him that their action on the present and previous occasions indicated that it did. Directly the hon. member endeavoured to do anything to cheapen the existing law, there he was met with opposition. That matter he need not go into, but he did protest loudly agains~ it going forth to the world that the police magistrates of Queensland were incom­petent. He said that with a few exceptions they had in their police magistrates men of the strongest common sen,,,e, who administered the laws of the land fairly and justly. The hon. member for Stanley had said that not more than five or six such men could be found, but he (Mr. Pattison) could point to thrice five or six. He simply rose so that the remarks of the Hon. the Colonial Secretary should not go forth unchallenged. He believed the police magis­trates were quite competent to administer the law even with the extended jurisdiction which the clause proposed to allow.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES said he really thought the remarks of the Colonial Secretary had been to a certain extent misinter­preted. He did not gather from what the hon. gentleman said that he held in contempt the police magistrates of the colony. In fact, he had reason to know otherwise, because he had heard him speak in most eulogistic terms of those magistrates. The question before them was a legal one, and looking at it in the legal glass it must be looked upon in a purely legal light. There was not the slightest doubt in the world that, not only in Queensland, but in all the

. colonies, no matter what Government was in power, it felt compelled to bring in a certain number of statutes every year, and the conse­quence was that the list of legal statutes that had

accumulated was far greater than any "laym:1n, '' whatever might be his ability, could grasp. H;e doubted if :1ny lawyer knew one-tenth of their real meaning, and the proof of that was that whenever there was a dispute they found the luminaries of the law take oppo~ite sides,.and use arguments with great cogency on the side they were retained for. He too&: it that a country,was in the best state as regarded law when it require.d no expert to decide upon its meotning, and when the meaning of any Act was so plain that the most simple man could run and read. It was an unhappy thing for the country when the great fount of justice was allowed to be obscured by technicalities. There was a t ndency, not only in the legal but in the medical profession, to obscure the simple truth, by what he might term "haphazard " excursions into the bounds of speculation, and that tendency was becoming so great, not only in regard to civil law but criminallaw, that the greatest violation of justice and morality was possible, and conscientious men were found to defend it. It was the duty of Parliament to stop that as far as possible. He did not intend to give an ovinion upon the legal aspect o( the case, and fully acknowledged hls incompetency to do so; but he did not believe there was a lawyer, whatever his ability might be, who could not give an opinion in favour of either side which retained him on the simplest Act in lhe statute-book. It was something disgraceful that things which seemed to belong to the most simple details took up the time of the superior courts, and led the parties concerned into an expenditure that was almost penal, upon the conduct of any business. 'fhe state of the law was such at present that a man could not carry on the simple occupation of a hawker without being subjected to being ruined in the process of determining the meaning of what his license convevecl.

Mr. O'SULLIYAN said he thought the honest opinion given by the hon. member for Rockhamptou in his able speech woul<l do 0

immense credit to the police magistrates in the colony. Of course his own opinion had not the slightest weight whatever ; but when it was backed up by that of the Colonial Secretary,· then it began to acquire some truth ; before tha.t it had none. He could only say in answer to that hon. gentleman that he was as truthful in that Committee as the hon. member, and what­ever the weight of his opinion might or might not be, it had nothing to do with the matter. His votes and his opinions had always been in­dependent, and he thought that would he acknowledged. The hon. gentleman seemed almost shocked at the remark he had made about police magistrates, when he hinted that he had seen a police magistrate asleep upon the bench.

An HONOURABLE MEMBER : Was he a country­man of yours ?

Mr. O'SULLIV AN said he would be none the worse and none the better if he were; but they need not bring countries into it. That statement shocked the hon. gentleman, but he would shock him a little more. Would the hon. gentleman believe that he saw justice sold for 2s. 6d. in a court of justice in Queensland? He saw the decision of a bench bought and sold for 2s. 6d. in cash. It did not matter whether the hon. gentle­man believed it or not ; it was a fact.

The HoN. B. D. MOREHEAD: It is the cheapest justice I ever heard of.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN said the Colonial Secre­tary had acknowledged that he could not pitch upon one single police magistrate in the colony to place in a position to act under the Bill the hon. member for Burrum had introduced. He had seen very good men serving as police magis­trates, and he had also seen some very bad ones.

Small Debts Court Bill. [9 JUNE.] Small Debts Court Bill. 303

They were just like the rest ofthe public. There were good and bad amongst them, the same as amongst members of that Committee.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he could not allow another moment to pass without stating that he had no desire to reflect npon the corn patency of their police magistrates to do the work entrusted to them, for there were as zealous, impartial, upright police magis­trates in Queensland as in any portion of Aus­tralia, and they did their duty to the best of their ability. When he spoke before he was alluding to the difficult legal questions which might come before them. In the best courts it was essential that tbey should obtain judges of the highest character and of the best legal attainments. In the District Courts they re­f[Uired that the judges should be trained men who had sened a number of years in the legal profes­sion, so that they might be able to deal with the facts of a case, and arrive at a correct conclusion. If a m:1n made a barg:1in relatingto a matter of £1,000, and gave ten promissory notes of £100 each, each of those might be made a subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Bill, and many legal 'lues­tions of the most difficult character might arise. All his observation went to show was that if . .:!Ch questions were to be submitted to metro­politan courts of petty sessions, he did not know where he could put his hand upon a police magistrate who had sufficient legal training to enable him to decide them properly. And that did not reflect upon them in any way. It was only a criticism upon the system under which those magietrates might have been appointed. He did not say that the magistrates were not doing the duty now entrusted to them as well as they could be expected to do it. On the contrary, he knew that thoy were, and perhaps they arrived at as trne conclu­sions as those who might have had a better legal training. Such actions a.s slander required the highest legal training on account of the f[Uestions that might be involved. He had no desire to reflect upon the personnel of the magistrates, but only said that it would be diff1cult to pitch upon one who had that legal training which would entitle him to decide questions of law up to £100. He hoped the hon. member for Rockbampton would not carry away the impression that he thought the maglstrates were unable to do the work they were appointed to do, or disqualified from performing the duties imposed upon them at present.

Mr. P ATTISON said. that he remembered distinctly what the Colonial Secretary had said in the first instance, and also what he had said in his explanation. The explanation and the original statement were widely different, and the explanation did not be~tr out the original state­ment. If ever a slur had been cast upon a body of men, it had been cast upon the police magis­trates of the colony by the Colonial Secretary. That would go forth to the colony, and no other conclusion could be arrived at by that Com­mittee or by the outside public when they read the remarks of the hon. member. Of course, the explanation was largely a contradiction of the first statement. He had no objection to the two things going side by side. He did not feel particularly interested in the question, but it did appear a strange statement for the Colonial Secretary to make-to libel the police magis­trates of the colony as he had done in his first remarks.

Mr. POWERS said that he thought the Colonial Secretary must really have forgotten what he did say the first time, because if the hon. member would remember he had stated that those justices would be the ones who would have to decide the questions of fact. The hon.

member had tried to force down his throat tha~ there was no appeal against a question of fact, and therefore it was dangerous to trust those men with f[Uestinns of fact. He (Mr. Powers) had had to read the Act to show that thev were not limited to que-,tions of law ; and that was the whole f[Uestion. They were now the judges of fact up to £30, and their jurisdiction w0uld simply be extended. The hon. member for Rockhampton was therefore correct in saying that the hon. gentleman's explanation was different to the char~e. The hon. gentleman must remem­ber that he had read the section to show that they were not limited to questions of law, and that their decisions could be appealed against on ques· tions offact as well as saw. The first argument of the hon. gentleman, as he understood him, was that magistrates could not be trusted with ques­tions of fact beyond £30. Heally, what the hon. gentleman said was this: that he (Mr. Powers) was trying to deprive men of the right of having their cases heard before a jury, as it was for juries to try questions of fact. So it was, admittedly; but his argument was that they deprived people now of the right of having their cases tried before a jury in cases up to £30, if they liked to go to the small debts court. The question was whether that could not be extended to cases up to £50 or £100, as the case might be. He had underotood the Colonial Secretary to mean that on f(nestions of fact the police magis­trates of the colony ought not to be trusted with the extension suggested.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: I did not say that.

Mr. POWERS said that Hanscwd would show. If a police magistrate made a mistake in a ques­tion ofla w, the appeal was so simple that it could he rectified easily at an expense of a few guineas. If a magistrate made any mistake on a question of law, it was simply sent to the District Court, and at an expense of three or five guineas the matter could be set right; so that a mistake upon a f[uestion of law was not v0ry important. He did not think th:1t under those circumstances there should be any great objection.

The HoN. B. D. MOREHEAD said that it appeared to him that the hon. gentlemen on the other side wished to have a monopoly of legal amendments. Now, they had been Yery tenderly dealt with by his side, and he thought they might treat the measure r.ot in the hostile way they had, simply because it came from a legal member on that side.

HoNOURABLE MElllBERS on the Government side: Oh, no!

The HoN. B. D. MOUEHEAD said that on his side they were few in number, so far as their legal supporters were concerned ; but, at any rate, they had a gentleman there who had shown a very great desire to reduce the cost of litigation. He thought the hon. member was as good a legal reformer as any they had in the Chamber. 'With regard to what had fallen from the Colonial Secretary, it appeared that he had gone in and out on the police magistrate question.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY : You were not here.

The HoN. B. D. MOREHEAD said that he knew what the hon. gentleman would have said even if he had not been there. From what had happened he judged of what would be and what was. He wanted to know why the jurisdiction of police magistrates should be limited to £30? Was it because the barometer at the level of the sea stood at thirty inches? \Vhy should it not be £31 or £29? He would like to have some explanation on that point. If those gentlemen were qualified to deal with cases in which

804 Small Debts Court Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Small Debts Court Bill.

not more than £30 was involved, they were qualified to deal with cases involving £50, or £100.

The CHIEF SECRETARY (Hon. SirS. W. Griffith) : Or £500 even?

The HoN. B. D. MOREHEAD said that he did not wish to go so far as that; but why fix the sum at £30? \Vas it done arbitrarily? He would go further and say that he would just as soon­with all due deference to the bench as con­stituted in this colony-trust a case even up to £500 to be decided by some of their police magistrate~ as he would by some of their judges. The Colomal Secretary had stated that they wanted to get the bHt legttl talent for their judges. Theoretically that was a perfectly corrRct exposition of what ought to be; but the question was, did they get it ? Probably they did not, any more than they got it in some of their police magistrates. He certainly agreed with the hon. member in charge of the Bill, that extended power should be given to police magistrates to prevent excessive litigation or going into the higher courts. He considered they h?.d as competent men in their police magistrates as they had in some of their judges. · .

The HoN. P. PERKINSsaid that he had been listening with close attention to the statement of the Colonial Secretary, and the hon. gentleman had said that in small matters it was safe to allow a police magistrate to decide matters of fact; but when it came to questions of law a diffi­culty arose, because he would then have to search about for four or five gemlemen with high legal qualifications.

The CHIEF SECRETARY said that on the second reading of the Bill he had asked what reason could be given for a plaintiff being able to say whether the defendant should be entitled to a jury or not. He did not know whether the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill had given any answer to the question, but he would like to know what answer could be given. It seemed to him that their legislation should proceed on some sort of principle, but it appeared in that instance to depend entirely upon caprice. Surely a defendant ought to have certain rights, and not be subject to the caprice of the plaintiff. There might be an answer to that, but he did not know of any that could be given. The hon. member for Balonne asked why the jurisdiction of the small debts court should be limited to £30.

The HoN. B. D. MOREHEAD : I gave a possible reason.

The CHIEF SECRETARY said that the reason, he supposed, was this : That in small matters the balance of convenience was that they should be allowed to be dealt with in a summary way before justices.

The HoN. B. D. MOREHEAD: Why £SO? The CHIEF SECRETARY said that was an

arbitrary sum that had been fixed. It had formerly been £10 in Sydney, and it used to be £10 in this colony; but it had been raised to £30, as in the circumstances of the colonv that was considered to be the best sum to fix "it at. They had already given additional facilities for suing in District Courts, by allowing speedy judgments ; and now the hon. member for Burrum wanted them to introduce an element of caprice and uncertainty into the administra­tion of justice. There was another difficulty that occurred to him, and that was that the police magistrates could not do the work now. As a matter of fact, the police magistrates did not do the work of the small debts court. He believed that in Brisbane neither of the police magis­trates had time to sit in that court, and he had been told-he did not know whether he was

right-that the police magistrate in Rockhamp­ton had very much to do, and had no time to add to his duties those of a petty debts court judge.

Mr. P ATTISO::'if: Why do you send him to Mount Morgan and other places?

The CHIEF SECRETARY said that if he did not go someone else would have to go in his stead.

Mr. POWERS said the Colonial Secretary had already raised the question of caprice, and he had answered it. He said now that the plaintiff under the present system could drag the defendant in a C<Lse of over £30 to a court where the costs might be £300 or £600. There was that case in South Brisbane where the man dragged the defendant to the Supreme Court for £70, and was ruined. That was the caprice of the plaintiff as it could be exercised at present.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: In th<tt case the plaintiff brought an unsuccessful action. Why did he bring it?

Mr. POWERS : Because the plaintiff could atJ his own caprice drag the defendant anywhere he liked. In that case he lost.

The CHIEF SECimTARY :"And he paid.

Mr. POWERS : And he was ruined. But it was not his fault. He was in the hands of his advisers. At present it was in the ucprice of a man to ruin another by taking him to the more expensive courts in any matter above £30. \Vhy should not a man be allowed at his own caprice to take another to the small debts court, where the expenses were small, in any matter up to £100 ?

The CHIEF SECRETAI~Y: And deprive him of a jury.

Mr. POWERS said that in the small debts court the police magistrate was good enough jury for any man. If he made a mistake on the law it could be remedied at very little expense, and on the question of fact he was good enough. If the Committee did not think so they would not extend the jurisdiction. At present any defendant, at the C<ctprice of the plaintiff, could be run into unlimited expense.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: And you pro­pose that there shall be additional caprice.

Mr. POWERS said he proposed that the defendant at the c.:1price of the plaintiff might be taken to a court where the costs would be two guineas instead of taking him to a court where the costs might amount to hundreds.

l\'l:r. BARLOW said he knew something about the case referred to by the ban. member for Burrnm, and his impression was that if the man had been allowed in the first place to go before a police magistrate and get his dose of law, he would have sat down content. There would have been an end of the matter.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: The hon. mem­ber has not the facts of the case.

Mr. BARLO\V said he had sixty sheets of paper in his drawer. He spoke with all deference to the opinion of the Chief Secretary ; but in his opinion if that man had had his dose of law before the police magistrate he would probably have sat down satisfied.

The CHIE:F SECRETARY: He could not have gone before a police magistrate.

Mr. BARLOW: The original claim was for £70.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: It was not an action of which a small debts court could take cognisance. It was a c:>se in which an injunc­tion was wanted.

Small 1Jebt8 Court Bill. [(:)JUNE.] Small 1Jeot8 Court Bill. 305

Mr. BARLOW said that in that case he would abandon his position. But if it had been a case which the plaintiff might have taken before a police magistrate as proposed in the Bill-having gone. there and had his dose of law he would have been content. As he read the papers con­nected with the case to which reference had been made, the claim appeared to have been a purely fictitious one, the amount being put down as over £200, for the purpose, he presumed, of bring­ing the matter under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The statement of claim was one of the most extraordinary documents he ever read, and he would read it to the

.Committee if requested. The result of the action was the loss of some £700, and the absolute ruin and utter desperation of the un­successful plaintiff. He had had some experi­ence in sitting on the bench, and he generally found that wh~re the plaintiff and the defendant had quarrelled, when they had "pulled" one another, as it was termed-when they had had the law of a man-they generally sat down satis­fied ; and he could not help thinking that the proposal of the hon. member for Bnrrnm was an improvement-certainly in the light of any case like that to which he had referred.

The CHIEF SECRETARY said the hon. member was under a misapprehension. The action he referred to was an action brought by a man who could only go to the Supreme Court, because he wanted an injunction. That action had nothing to do with the Bill before the Com­mittee, any more than it had to do with the question of capital punishment.

Mr. PO\VERS said that the case referred to was not an exceptional case. He had a list of the costs of oases. In an action for £24 the costs were £15; in an action for £14 the costs were £19.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: In what court? Mr. POWERS : The Supreme Court. In a

case involving £50 the costs were £192, and the taxed costs £112. There was a claim for £45, the costs being £101 Gs. 4d.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: The District Courts Act remedied all that.

Mr. POWERS: Only up to £30. The CHIEF SECRETARY: The defendant

can insist on the case being taken to the District Court if he likes.

1\Ir. PO\VERS said he could do so after the action was commenced. In an action for £50, the costs were £103; in a case involving £60, the costs on one side were £140; and in an action for £92 the costs were £191). It was at the caprice of the plaintiffs in those cases to drag the defendants to a court where they might be ruined, and he wanted to enable a man to say he would have his law in some court where lie was not going to be ruined.

Question-That clause 1, as read, stand part of the Bill-put ; and the Committee divided :­

AYEs, 21. Messrs. Nelson, Donaldson, Black, Pattison, Drake,

Powers, Agnew, Dickson, Barlow, Salkeld, MW3farlane, Isambert, Jessop, Lis~ner, Corfield, Luya, Palmer, Gannon, Perkins, Stevenson, and Morehead.

NoEs, 14. SirS. W. Griffith, Messrs. Unmack, Sayers, O'Sullivan,

Ryan, Mclfaster, Grimes, Smyth, llyne, Tozer, Smith, Rutledge, Hodgkinson, and Foxton.

Question resolved in the affirmative. On clause 2, as follows :-"Small debts courts held within a metropolitan

petty sessions district shall have jurisdiction to try actions, otherwise cognizable by a small debts court, where the debt or demand does not exceed one hundred pounds.

1892-w

"Where the debt or demand exceeds thirty pounds, the decision of the police magistrate presiding at the hearing shall be the judgment of the court."

Mr. POWERS moved the omission in the 2nd paragraph of the words " the decision of the police magistrate presiding at the hearing shall be the judgment of the court," with the view of inserting the words " the action shall be tried before a police magistrate.''

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said he was sorry he was not able to be present earlier, so as to have derived some benefit from the discussion which had taken place on the 1st clause. He was totally opposed to the 2nd clause. Anyone who had had anything to do with the working of the small debts court must know that, presided over by magistrates, as many of them were, and even by police magistrates, with very little familiarity with the law, their decisions were often unsatis­factory. He did not very often go to the small debts court, but practitioners in the small debts court had repeatedly during late years com­plained to him of the manner in w hi eh decisions were given by that court. He did not say that the magistrates, whether they were police magis­trates or honorary magistrates, did anything in the slightest degree that would justify an im­peachment of their integrity ; but from want of familiarity with the branches of the law with which it was desirable that magistrates should be acquainted they made grievous mistakes, and great injustice had, he knew, been doM to suitors in the small debts court. And to say now that the jurisdiction of small debts courtg ought to be extended seemed to him to be monstrous when such mistakes were made. \Vhat were their District Courts for if they were not to be the courts to which matters involving any sum over £30 were to be referred? Surely there was as much knowledge of law required to decide a dispute in which £100 was involved as one in which £200 was involved, yet the latter amount was fixed as the limit of jurisdiction in civil actions in the District Court. He certainly thought that there could be no justification for extending the jurisdiction of the small debts court in the way now proposed. The hon. member in charg·e of the Bill proposed to protect suitors by providing that police magis­trates should be appointed to try such cases. How many more police magistrates did the hon. member wish the Government to appoint? If he expected that the police magistrates of the metropolitan district courts-one on the north and one on the south side-were going to do their ordinary work as police magistrates and also preside over small debts courts, he was reckoning without his host; the thing was utterly irr1possible. If the small debts courts were pre.ided over by magistrates whohadhadlegal trai11ingthere might not be so much objection to it, but if the power was vested in small debts courts presided over by magistrates, whether police magistrates or nnp:.id magistrates, who had little or no legal training, it seemed to him it would be an entire anomaly. He thought the evil already complained of should not be extended as proposed in the Bill. At the present time, with the limit fixed at £30, speaking of Brisbane, the petty debts court sat every day.

Mr. DRAKE: Twice or three times a week. The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said that not long

since the court sat every day when there was any business to do, but if the clause proposed were to be carried into effect, and the police magis­trate's presence to hear those cases was indispen­sable, the result would be a glut of business, and suitors would be greatly inconvenienced by having their caoes standing over from week to week for adjudication in order that the presence of the police magistrate could be secured. That

306 .Small Debts Oottrt Bill. [ASSEJ\fBLY.] Small Debts Court Bill •

would be a very undesirable thing to bring about. The object of the small debts court was to enable persons having petty disputes involving money claims insignificant in character adjudi­cated upon without delay and at small expense; and to make provision for the extension of the jurisdiction of that court up to £100, and that the police magistrate should be present on all occasions when such c1ses were being tried, would be injurious to suitors, and was likely to be injurious in many other ways. He could certainly not support such a proposal, though he gave the hon. member his most cordial approbation for his persevering efforts in the direction of what he supposed to be r,_form. The present proposal w~ts reform backwards, and was not the kind o£ reform people were crying out for.

Mr. HYNE : Conciliation boards are what the people are crying out for.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said that as to the question of costs, the figures the hon. member had given the Committee were not relevant to the queetion under discussion. The hon. mem­ber must know that ordinarily the costs in the Dist:·ict Court we re exceeding{y moderate; and was 1t not far better for parties to a suit involving a sum o£ from £00 to £100 to go to the District Court, where they would have the benefit of a trained judge to adjudicate upon the facts-a nmn whose business it was tu understand the science of unravelling testimony and mastering facts, and who mnst have a knowledge of Jaw, rather than submit their case to a police magis­trate who might have very little training and no knowledge of law? He would point out with respect to the question of costs that if the presence of a police magistrate to hear such cases was indispemable, the result could only be a system of adjournments, anrl the professional men engaged in those cases won!d have to be paid for each adjournment. The result would be that though the initial cost might be much smaller: the costs of adjournment would be piled one upon another until the actual costs in tho>e cases would be contiiderably more than if they were heard before the District Court.

Mr. DOXALTJSON: You are letting us in to smne secrets now.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said he was merely stating what "as likely to be the effect of the clause ; and, while he applauiled the hon. gentle­man's anxiety to give facilities for getting law at a cheap rMe, he would like to see efliciency as well ~ts c]leapness ; and he said that a provision to submit thosA cases to the adjudication of a sn;all debts court, presided over by a man who mi_gbt have had no legal training and no special skill whatever, was not in the interests of suitors or of the public generally. . Mr. FOX'!'QN said he always understood that 1t was the pnvilege of a defendant to luwe a jury if he required it; but by the clause before them it was proposeil to carefully eliminate the jury element altogether and give into the hands of one man, whether the defendant liked it or not the power of adjudicating upon all actions up to £100. If a suitor decided to have his case tried before a judge, and took it into the District C~urt, the d_efendant had the right to demand a Jury, and 1f he jJald £2 as a jury fee a jury was summoned to try the case. He thou"ht that was a very safe right, and he d1il not like the idea of getting rid of juries, especially when it was proposed at the same time~ to substitute for a judge a police magistrate, who necessarily would not h:;ve the ~ame training or occupy the same sta;nd1:1g as a Judge. That was a very serious obJectwn to the clause, and one which he thouo-ht would entail its repeal before long. He ;as ~atisfied that even if the Bill passed both Houses rt would not; be in force for rnore than twelve

months before they would find letters in the papers, and considerable agitation amongst suitors, demanding its repeal.

Mr. POWERS : No ; its extension.

Mr. J!'OXTON : The extension of a principle which deprived a party to an action of the right to a jury ! He did not think so. That was not his idea of progress at all. In the case of the small debts court the limit of jurisdiction was at one time £30, and for reasons which appeared good to the legislature it was reduced to £10, and was afterwards raised again to £30. There was also in the Small Debts Court Act a provision by which actions up to £10 might be decided accord-, to equity and good con;cience, and he had known some o£ the funniest decisionH to be given under the cloak of that p:uticular section. He re­mGmbered sitting in the small debts court at Brisbane one day, and hearing, a judgment solemnly delivered by the bench in a breach of warranty dispute about a cow. The question arose as to how much milk the cow could give, and after she had been driven backwards and forwards from the plaintiff's yard to the defendant's yard, the solemn order of the bench was that the cow should be milked, and if she gave twelve quarts judgment should be for the plaintiff, with costs ; and if she gave leas than twelve quarts, judg­ment should be for the defendant, with costs. There was no order as to how she should be milker:!, or where, or in whose pre•ence the milking was to be carried out. He objected strongly to have the interests of the public at large in actions involving £100 placed in the hands of gentlemen prepared to give such judgments as that.

Mr. DONALDSON: Are they not as com­petent as many juries?

Mr. JfOXTON said there were a large number of cases in the District Court in which juries were demanded. £100 was £100 in these days, and it might mean a man's all, and those cases should be left to the District Court, where the parties would have the advantage of a judge as dis­tinguished from a police magbtrate, and the right to demand a jury to try their cases.

Mr. PO.WERS said that the two hon. mem­bers who had just spoken had only just entered the Chamber, and, of course, had not heard the whole of the arguments that had been used. Every point they had raised had been argued fully.

The CHIEF SECHETARY: I did not hear it.

Mr. POWERS said the hon. gentleman had not been present either, and had left the matter in good bmds with the Colonial Secretary. That hon. gentleman had raised the same points, and he had answered them as fully as h"l could. Juries were now debarred in actions up to £30.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE : And that is felt to be an evil.

Mr. POWERS sn,id the public had not cried out to have it altered.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE: They have.

Mr. POWERS said no Bill had ever been presented to the Houee asking for juries in small debts court cases, nor had they been asked for, though the Act had been in force for the last twenty-seven years. The Small Debts Court Act the hon. gentleman referred to was passed in 1865, twenty-seven years ago ; and surely some progress should have been made in that time.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE: We have the same class of police magistrates now as we had then,

Small Debts Courl: Bill. [9 JUNE.] Small Debts C'ourt Bill. 307

Mr. POWERS said that in New Zealand they had extended the jurisdiction of the small debtH court to £50, and in South Australia they had extended it first to £100, then to £200, and again to £490-all tho~e cases being tried before stipendiary magistrates. That showed that all the other colonies were progressing in that matter. The hon. mem­ber for Carnarvon had commented, to the amusement of the Committee, on the decision given in the small debts court with regard to a cow; but the question arose what would a judge or jury have done if the cow had been sold to give twelve quarts of milk? How would they find out without trying whether she gave twelve quarts or not? He had seen some peculiar decisions given in both the Supreme Court and the District Court. As far as police magistrates were concerned, if they made any mistake it could be rectified by the District Court. When the debate started, a good deal of discussion relative to the 2nd clause took place on the 1st, which was hardlv touched upon, because it was thought to "be no use to pass the one unless hon. members were agreed to pass the other. He did not think the hon. gentleman who had just spoken had raised any objection that had not been already raised by the opponents of the Bill, and replied to. He would point out that in all places where extended jurisdiction had been given the inclination of Parliaments had been not to curtail but to still further extend it.

Mr. FOXTON said he very much regretted that he had not been present during the whole of the discussion, and was consequently not aware of all the arguments that had fallen from the hon. member for Burrum. He wished, however, to point out that in cases in the small debts court they had at present machinery which was something analogous to the jury system, inasmuch as they generally had the police magistrate and a number of other justices sitting with him. But in the clause as it stood, and as it was proposed to be amended, that machinery was carefully eliminated, and it was made compulsory for one man to decide all cases up to £100. He also thought that if they allowed amateur justices to dabble in the matter they would be no better off. He did not think it advisable to raise the juris­diction of magistrates at all, seeing the cheap machineq that existed at the present time in the Distrwt Court. Much lees did he think it ad­visable to increase the jurisdiction of police magis· trates and at the s~me time to provide that only one man should decide in those cases. That was his great objection to the clause. At present the jurisdiction was up to £30, and they had a safeguard in the fact that any magistrate who was not personally interested in the case might sit on the bench and hear it. There were many police magistrates who were perfectly well­meaning men, and had a fair knowledge of business, but who were not competent to try abstruse questions of law in which amounts up to £100 were involved.

Mr. MACFARLANE said he had always supported the hon. member for Burrum in his attempts to cheapen law, and in the present instance he thought the hon. gentleman's inten­tion was good, and that if carried into law no harm could arise. Hon. members must have observed th~t the lawyers in the House had almost unammously opposed all attempts made by that hon. member to introduce law reform, and that was a great argument with him (.Mr. Macfarlane). If he knew nothing at all about the matter he would conclude that the hon. member had a just cause, because all the lawyers were against him. Some lawyers thought that 11-ll wisdom was centred in the law, So far as

he was concerned he would rather be judged by two honest men than Ly lawyers. He did not mean to say that all lawyers were dishonest, but he did say that the existing system of law was so thoroughly bad, from the ro0t to the topmost branch, that some­thing ought to be attempted to be done to reform it, even if they could not succeed in doing it. The hon. member for Carnarvon had referred to the case of a cow, but it appeared to him (Mr. Macfarlane) that the lawyers were sorry to part with the power of milking the cow, and hence their opposition tu the Bill. ·what harm could arise from allowing metropolitan magistrates to deal with cases up to £100? The lawyers said there were so many legal technicalities and difficulties, that the magistrates were not suffi­ciently trained to deal with them ; but after all on investigation it would be found that nearly all cases were decided according to justice. The man who had the best case generally had a verdict given in his favour, and, as a rule, the metro­polita-n magistrat•s were as capable of giving a just decision as men who had had legal training. One hon. member had said that he would just as soon be tried by magistrates as by a judge, and he (:Ylr. Macfarlane) felt the Sitme way. There

· w<ts this to be said in favom of the Bill, that if a man failed in the lower court it would not cost very much ; but if it were taken into one of the higher courts the whole £100, and perhaps another £100 b> sid~s, would be frittered away. He knew a case that was going on at that moment-it had not yet gone into court-but the lawyers, one for the plaintiff and another for the defendunt, had actually eaten up half the estate already. They cert:-tinly wanted some reform in the law, and he hoped the Committee would support the hon. member for Burrum in his attempt to cheapen law as much as possible.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said he did not think the hon. member who had just spoken could expect the Committee to agree with him when he said that the legal members had always opposed every attempt at legal reform introduced by the hon. member for Burrum. The hon. member might have formed that opinion of their action on former occasions, but he (Mr. Hntledge) could assnre the Committee that the motive which actuuted the members of the legal profession in reg: •. rd to the reforms proposed by the hon. member for BmTum had not been the spirit of opposition. He had symrmthised with several "f the hon. gentleman's attempts at reform, and had given him credit for sincerity and earnest­ness of purpose; but at the same time he would rather leave thing" as they were than have a reform which waq incompleto. and of such a character as would work more mischief than the existing state of things. The hon. gentleman's reforms had been brnught forward in Bills that he (Mr. Rntledge) could nut support.

Mr. POWERS : You supported the Chief Secretary when he brought in the District Courts Bill, which was the same as I introduced.

The HoN. A. Ru'I'LEDGE said the Bill brought in by the Chief Secretary was not identicotl with that brought in by the hon. member, and in all cases where there was some re"emblance to it the Bill as brought in by the Chief Secretary was a vast improvement on the Bill as brought in by the hon. member for Burrum, though the object aimed at was the same. He had never objected to the prin­ciple of the hon. mmnb.or's District Courts Bill, but to the provisions by which it was sought to give effect to that principle, seeing, as he did, that they would fail to accomplish the object aimed at. Hon. members should bear in mind, when they talked about magistrates, and their desire to deal out justice, that

308 Small Debts Oourt Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Small Debts Oottrt Bill.

in all the courts of the colony there were practitioners, very often young solicitors, largely eng·aged in ca,;es before the small debts court, who made a practice of raising quibbling points of law ·before the magistrates; and that many nmgistrates prided themselves on having a sort of knowledge of the law, and often gave the most absurd decisions according to their ideas of what the technicalities of the law required.

Mr. PO\VERS : There have been very few appeals.

The Hox. A. RU1'LEDGE said that was because the people who went into the small debts court were not people who could afford to appeal. He would instance a case in which he himself was concerned some years ago. It was an action for damages for a collision, and was heard before a police magistrate, a very able man and a useful public servant, against whom he had nothing to say. After all the facts had been proved by the plaintiff, the solicitor on the other side got up. and asked if that was the plaintiff's case, and on being told that it wtts, moved for a nonsuit on the ground that it had not been proved that the plaintiff had asked the defendant to pay the money. The police magis­trate thought that was a point of Jaw that was fatal to the plaintiff's case-a mere quibbling technicality at the best-and nonsuited the plaintiff with two guineas costs. He (Mr. H,utledge) was furious at that, and immediately­although the plaintiff could not afford to gi \'e the usual security to prosecute the ap[Jeal-instructed the solicitor to see that the man was not blocked of his right to appeal merely because he had not got the money for that purpose. That was done, and when the matter came before the District Court the court simply bughed, and reversed the decision, with five guineas costs. A small debts court ought to be P-;sentially a court in which trivial claims were adjudicated upon by 1nen of plain cornrnon sense, who \Vould give a verdict according to the facts. Magistrates who took upon themselves to decide points of law, and often in a very absurd way, gave occasion for appeals by persons who could not afford to appeal, and iuvol ved expense all round.

Mr. DONALDSON said it was hardly fair to take exce]Jtional cases and use them as argu­ments against legal reform. The hon. member had referred to a suit where the plaintiff had proved his case. He might mention another suit for damages tried before a police magistrate where the solicitor for the plaintiff, after calling his evidence, said, "That is my case." The solicitor on the other side got up and asked that the case should be dismissed because no damages had been proved. That was not the fault of the bench, but of the lawyer.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said there was no fault in the case he had mentioned.

Mr. DONALDSON baid cases were constantly occurring where lawyers mismanaged their clients' cases ttnd then abused the tribunal which gave the decision. He belieYed that the juris­diction of police magistrates should be much more extended than it was at present, more particularly in outlying districts, where it was not possible to have District Courts more than once, or perhaps twice, a year. At present a debtor could put his thumb to his nose and defy a creditor to take any action against him unless ·the case was down in Brisbane.

The CHIEF SECRJ:!;TARY: We altered that last year.

Mr. DONALDSON said it was altered only to a limited extent. He was not going to pass such a slur upon the police magistrate.s of the colony as to say that they were not capable of dealing

with cases to a much l~rger amount than at present. And with regard to the other magis­trates, considered as jurors, could anyone say that they dtd not compare very favourably with the jurors they saw in the courts?

Mr. FOXTON: On questions of fact. Mr. DONALDSON said that very often

questions of fact were much more important than the points of law that might be raised with regard to them, and a good deal might be over­looked if justice was administered. As to the Bill as a whole, he was not familiar enough with it to say whether it was one which ought to pass in its entirety; but if he had any doubts on the subject, the opposition it had met with from the legal members of the Committee would have determined him to give it his hearty support as far as it had gone.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: We have only di,cussed one clause as yet.

Mr. FOXTON said the hon. member for Ipswich, Mr. Macfarlane, was welcome to his opinion as to whether lawyers were honest men or not.

Mr. MACF ARLANE : I did not charge them with dishonesty.

Mr. FOX TON said the hon. member did so by implication, at all events. However, he would let it pass. The hon. member for Bulloo had suggested that the enlarged jurisdiction proposed in the clause sh011ld be extended to police magis­trates in the outlying districts. \Vas the hon. member under the impression that Thargomindah, for instance, would be proclaimed a metropolitan district? But it did not profess to give facilities to the outside district.s at all. He merely wanted to show that the Bill did not do what the hon. member for Bulloo appeared to be under the impression it would do. The hon. member for Ipswich, Mr. Macfarlane, stated that the lawyers had shown opposition to any measure of alleged legal reform brought forward by the hon. member for Bnrrum. That was not so. He thought he had supported the general prin­ciples of the measures of the hon. member for Burrum, and he agreed with a great deal that was in the Bill. There were a number of provisions in the Bill that he thought most excellent, but in that particular one he differed from the hon. member very much. He thought he was p~rfectly justified in doing so, but he should support the hon. member, when he thought he was on safe ground, in instituting reforms which would be for the benefit of the public. \Vhere his experience taught him the reverse he should oppose hin1. As for the con­tention that the present proposal would cheapen law, there could not be a greater mistake. Under the Small Debts Act many a decision was given that was not according to law, but which was according to justice, and numbers of appeals took place at the present time; but the fact of the amonnts in dispute being '"mall was a bar to unsuccessful litigants taking their cases further. OvRr and over again a litigant was advised that he had a good case and could appeal successfully, but he did not care to risk it. He was advised ag to what the probable costs would be, and rather than appeal he paid the money, which could not exceed £30. Now, if the jurisdiction of the small debts courts was increased to £100 there would be a different state of affairs. The coRt of apt>eal to the DiRtrict Court would be a small item as compared with the loss of £100, and a[Jpeals would multiply to an enormous extent. It was all very well to say that the magistrates would decide according to justice, but the hon. gentleman forgot there was an appeal, and when the case reached the District Court the parties would get law and, perhaps, injustice,

Relationships Between Judges, qc. r9 JuNE.] Marsupials Destruction Bill. 309

in some special case. The law was framed as a general principle to meet all cases. Everyone knew that particular cases arose in which consi­derable hardship was iuflieted on parties for the simple reason that they had brought them­selves just within the limits of the law, as it were. The law was so framed as to give justice all round on general princi pies. By the Bill the magistrates would decide each case according to what they thought ought to be the law, and not according to what it actually was, and appeals would be innumer­able. Whereas now, in the event of a suitor being forced to go to the District Court and get his law, he would go to the magistrates and get justices' justice in the first instance, and there would be an appeal to the District Court afterwards.

The HoN. J. R. DICKSON said he had !!reat hesitation in giving an opinion on legal or other matters with which he was not perfectly familiar. He had been endeavouring to learn all the afternoon which would be the better course to pursue in regard to the section before tlwm, and he arrived at the conclusion that he had to exercise his own judgment, notwithstanding the large amount of legal advice which had been tendered. On one side he learned that law would be cheapened to suitors who had small claims to adjust ; on the other side he was told that that cheapening of the law would result in numerous appeals; and he was all the more embarrassed when he observed the amount of virtuous self-denial exhibited by the lawyers when they profesBed to desire to cheapen law. There was an amount of self­denial exhibited which was extremely gratifying in thPc3e times when they were endeavouring to effect retrenchment in their expenditure. He thought the hon. member for Burrum was to be congratulated on the manner in which he held his own against such an array of learned talent ; and, as a layman, his sympathies were with him. He thought all that had been urged against the clause arose from the apprehension as to disqualification under which police magistrates laboured for want of ex­perience or ability to deal with cases in which £100 was involYed. He took it that there might be as much principle involved in a case in which £30 was in dispute as in a case where £100 was in dispute. If the abuses which the hon. mem­ber for Charter" Towers, Mr. Rutledge, alleged existed in the petty debts courts, why was it not abolished? He had not heard of much dissatisfaction existing in relation to the juris­diction of the petty debts court, and he thought they might fairly attempt the experiment of extending the jurisdiction of that court up to £100. He recognised in voting as he did on the 1st clause that the 2nd would naturally follow, and he therefore arrived at the delibRrate opinion that the experiment was a wise one, and he intended to vote for the 2nd clause.

On the motion of Mr. POWERS, the CHAIR· ~IAN left the chair, and reported progress.

The resumption of the debate was made an Order of the Day for Thursday week.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN JUDGES AND COUNSEL.

On the Order of the Day for the resumption of adjourned debate on Mr. Gannon's motion­" That, in the opinion of this House, no judge should sit alone in court or chambers in any matter in which his son acts as counsel"-being read,

Mr. GANNON said: Mr. Speaker,-! beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: You cannot do that. You can postpone the Order of the Day,

Mr. GANNOX: I think I am in order in saying one or two words. This motion was called on at two minutes past 6 o'clock, and I understood it was not coming on.

The SPEAKER : I shall resume the chair at 7 o'clock.

At 7 o'clock, The SPEAKER said : In compliance with the

Sessional Order, the House will now proceed with Government business.

ADJOURXMENT. The CHIEF SECRETARY said: Mr.

Speaker,-I beg to move that the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday next.

Question put and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. THIRD READING.

The CHIEF SECRETARY said: Mr. Speaker,-! think it is desirable that the 3rd clause of this Bill should recdve some further consideration, and I therefore move that the Order of the Day be discharged from the paper.

Question put and passed. The CHIEF SECHETARY said: Mr

Speaker,-! move that the Bill be recommitted for the further consideration of clauses 3 and 4.

Question put and passed. The CHIEF SECRETARY said: Mr.

Speaker,-! move that the recommittal of the Bill stand an Order of the Day for Tuesday nn~ •

The HoN. .J. R. DICKSON said: Jliir. Speaker,-May I ask the Chief Secretary if the Bill will be presented to us in its amended form?

The CHIE:I!' SECRETARY said: Mr. Speaker,-Yes; and the proposed amendments also, except one verbal· amendment.

Question put and passed.

COPYRIGHT (FINE ARTS) REGI8THA­TIOX BILL.

On the motion of the COLONIAL SECRE­TARY, the House, in c~mmittee, affirmed the desirableness of introducing a Bill to make pro­vision for the regi9tration of copyright in works of the fine arts in Queensland.

The House resumed ; the CHAIRMAN reported the resolution, and the resolution was adopted.

Fms'r READING The COLONIAL SECRETARY presented

the Bill, and moved that it be read a first time. Question put and passed. On the motion of the COLONlAL SECRE­

TARY, the second reading was made an Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

MARSUPIALS DESTRUCTION BILL. On the motion of the COLONIAL SECRE­

TARY, the House, in committee, affirmed the desirableness of introducing a Bill to encourage the destruction of marsupials, and for other purposes.

The House resumed ; the CHAIRMAN reported the. resolutions, and the resolutions were adopted.

The CHIEF SECRETARY said: Mr. Speaker -I have it in command from His Excelle~cy the Governor !o acquai~t the House that His Excellency, havmg been mformed of the provisions of the Bill about to be introduced, recommends the necessary appropriation to give effect to it.

310 Question TfTithout Notice. [ASSEMBLY.]

FIRST READING.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY presented the Bill, and moved that it be read a first time.

Question put and passed. On the motion of the COLO:ciiAL SECRE­

TARY, the second reading wa" made an Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

ADJOUR~ME~T.

The CHIEF SECRETARY said : l\Ir. Speaker,-I move that this House do now adjourn. It is proposed to take, on Tuesday, the second reading of the Elections Bill and the second rc11ding of the Hailways Construction (Land Subsidy) Bill.

Question put and passed. The House adjourned at seventeen minutes

past 7 o'clock.

Electiotts Bill.