The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-19 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL•

Yesterday a meeting of the Common Council was hi
at Guildhall, the Lord Mayor (Mr. Alderman Hale) .g
siding.
~•04

THE SHERIFFS' COURT.

Mr. Woodthorpe, the Town Clerk, read A letter which
had been addressed that morning to the..,,Lor, :Mayor by
Mr. Commissioner Kerr, the judge of th.. s' Court at
Guildhall. The commissioner stated t select com-
mittee of the House of Lords, to which,, ounty Courts
Equitable Jurisdiction Bill was rofe =gad inserted a
clause in the bill conferring jurisdicti• the Sheriffs
Court ; that he immediately communlcatkd with the Re-
membrancer on the subject ; and as the bill then stood for
committee on the following Monday, he on his own behalf
sought and obtained au interview with the Lord Chancellor,
at which he stated his objections to the clause. The Lord
Chancellor would not yield to his chief objection—to ac-
cepting the duties and responsibilities the bill would im-
pose upon him—and the result was the clause stood part of
the bill. The bill had since passed the Lords, where it ori-
ginated, and now stood for second reading in the House of
Commons on the 25th inst. The clause conferred the same
jurisdiction on the Sheriffs' Court as that given to the
county courts, and to that he had no objection in the ab-
stract; but it subjected the judge and officers of the court
to rules of practice and scales of costs to be be framed by
county court judges. Hitherto those rules of practice of the
Sheriffs' Court had been framed by the Recorder, Common
Sergeant, and judge of the court, and the regulation as to
costs by the judge alone. The clause then provided for the
fees taken on proceedings in the court being paid into its
general fund; but these fees were not to be fixed, as here-
tofore, by the Court of Common Council, but partly by the
Treasury and the Lord Chancellor, and partly by the Lord
Chancellor alone. Finally, the clause provided for the re-
muneration of the judge by giving him not the fees intended
as a fund for his remuneration, but an additional salary,
equal to that receivable by the county court judges out of
their collective fund. To such a clause he most strongly
objected, and he should be obliged, in order to preserve
for himself a locus standi, to petition against the bill ; but
that was a step he should not think of taking without
communicating his intention to the Court of Common
Council.

The letter gave rise to a very warm discussion, in the
course of which Mr. Do Jersey censured Mr. Commissioner
Kerr and the Itemembrancer for having in a matter affect-
ing the rights and privileges of the City put themselves in
communication with the Lord Chancellor and with the
Lords' select committee without having first consulted
either with the Common Council or the Lord Mayor.
Mr. CURTIS, the Remembrancer, explained that the bill
as originally introduced did not at all affect the City. He
called the attention of the law and parliamentary commit-
tee of the corporation to it, and suggested whether or not
it might be desirable that an equitable jurisdiction should
be conferred on the Sheriffs' Court. That committee de-
clined to interfere in the matter, and a clause was after-
wards introduced, conferring that jurisdiction on the court.
The effect would have been to throw the fees of the court
into a hotch-potch, while the judge would be paid the
same salary ; and by the instructions of the corporation
committee he prepared a clause to obviate that result by
empowering the Common Council to award an additional
salary to the judge in respect of the additional labour which
would be imposed on him. That clause was not adopted
by the Lords' committee, and so the matter rested.
On the motion of Mr. De JERSEY it was referred to the
law and parliamentary committee to investigate the whole
circumstances, and report forthwith to the court.