The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-10-07 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT JUDGES.

A " Caunty Court Judge" writes to The Times: -
Sir,—Lord Chelmsford once compared the County
Court Judges to certain meek-spirited and useful
animals, the panniers upon whose backs are filled with
loads of every description, perpetually increasing in
volume and weight until the end of the journey is
reached. I hope, Sir, the resemblance ended there,
and I believe the witty and learned Lord did not in-
tend to cairy his simile any further. However this
may be, I am glad as one of the body to be assured that
our labours are not altogether overlooked. The com-
mendation which in your article of the 9th inst. you
have bestowed upon the Courts over which we preside
demands our warm acknowledgments, and I heartily
thank you both for the attention which you have
given to the subject and for the observations which
you have thought fit to make upon the working of the
Courts.
"Justitia," in a letter to which you have since given
a place in The Times, has made an addition to your
statement of the business transacted by U 3 which
forcibly illustrates Lord Chelmsford's view of the
elasticity of our panniers; but you, Sir, have not, nor
has "Justitia," alluded to one part of our duties,
which, in estimating the number of days on which we
sit, should not be lost sight of. My observatiqns, of
course, do not apply to the Metropolitan County Court
Judges, but to those only who preside over the country
districts; I allude to the large amount of time con-
sumed in travelling to our several Courts. I myself
have the good fortune to officiate in a district unusually
compact, and I am much mistaken if many of my
brethren could not show a much larger number of
hours occupied in this irksome, and to men advanced in
years somewhat trying business of locomotion than falls
to my lot; but, in spite of the exceptional advantage
in this respect which I enjoy, I find that I travelled
last year, in going to and returning from my Courts,
not lees than 2,850 miles by road and 1,470 by
rail. At 20 miles an hour by rail and seven by road
the number stated would represent, at six hours a
day, about 80 days; but to allow for short days in
court, although we are glad of these for the preparation
of judgments and keeping ourselves postedup in new
decisions, say, 50 days for travelling, and after deduct-
ing Sundays and other legal dies non and the blessed
month of September, in which, thanks to a paternal
Parliament, we are not compelled to sit, you will not
find a large portion of the Year unaccounted for. Do I
complain of this? By no means. When I accepted
my appointment I was aware of its concomitant cir-
cumstances, and, of course, have no right to complain
of that which I was led to expect; but I think it is but
fair, and I trust you will agree with me, that in
estimating our labours those of body as well as of mind
should be taken into cone ideration.
Permit me to make one more observation in conch-
den. I say that I knew what travelling would be
necessary, and in that respect am not disappointed.
Some persons are at a loss to understand the fairness
of putting a large amount of additional work upon
me without a corresponding addition to my salary,
but Ido not desire to be in this respect less accommo-
dating than the meek beast of burden above alluded to.
This, however, I must say—that, partly in conse-
quence of the extraordinary increase in the necessary
cost of living, and partly in consequence of a construc-
tion pot by the Lord Chancellor upon the Act of 15
and 16 Vict., cap. 54, see. 16, nay pecuniary position,
so far from increasing with my work, is considerably
worse than it was nine or ten years ago. Is this right
or fair.