The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-26 00:00:00

Court of Common Council.

A Court of Common Council was holden yesterday at
the Council-chamber at Guildhall ; the Right Hon. the
Lord Mayor (Warren Stormes Hale, Esq.), presiding.
The court was not is calendar court, being convened
chiefly for the purpose of clearing off an accumulation of
business standing over from several previous courts. The
greater portion of the time was occupied in the discussion
of a report from the Law, Parliamentary, and City Courts
Committee, on the reference on the 9th March last on the
County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction Bill in Parliament,
and also on the reference of the 18th inst., on the letter of
the judge of the Sheriffs' Court upon the subject of the said
bill, and for authority to introduce new clauses in the bill,
and also to inquire whether the privileges of the court had
been in any way interfered with, stating that the Remem-
brancer had on the 13th March submitted the bill to them,
from which it appeared that the powers conferred by it on
the county courts were not extended to the Sheriffs' Court
of the City. The Remembrancer had also pointed out to
them, that since the passing of the City Small Debts Act, in
1857, various powers had been conferred on the county
courts, but not extended to the Sheriffs' Court. That in
1859 the court instructed the Law, Parliamentary and City
Courts Commitee, to ascertain whether any, and if any,
what changes orimprovements were necessary or desirable,
and could be effected in the jurisdiction, processf procedure,
and scales of fees, and if so, in what manner and at what
cost. That on the 4th Nov., 1859, the committee reported
to the court that they were of opinion that several changes
and improvements were necessary and desirable, in order
that the powers of the court might be, as far as should be
considered beneficial, made to correspond with those of the
county courts generally, and that these changes andim-
provements could only b 3 effected by act of Parliament.
That the court then directed notice to be given thatlappli-
cation would be made in the following session for a bill to
carry these objects into effect. A bill was introduced to Par-
liament in pursuance of the notice, but it was afterwards
withdrawn on objections made by Lord Redesdale, and the
committee adjourned the consideration of the question whe-
ther it was desirable that the equitable jurisdiction given
by the bill to county courts should be extended to the
Sheriffs' Court. The committee met again on April 3, and
it was resolved to wait until the bill had passed the House
of Lords, and then to meet and determine whether they,
would recommend that it was desirable to introduce into
the bill into the House of Commons clauses extending the
equitable jurisdiction to the Sheriffs' Court, and also clauses
to carry out the wishes of your honourable court, expressed
in
co tuhrte:year
mlBask9e,
the
n cereerra sees
pot hued
wp oltrhso
soef
otfhteh
eS
ooh e
or i f fn
tsy'
saeulBseecthe t
intocollem etmb t
ebe
iruoa
fncthe
extendingre reporteduo us Douse
theo
of Lords
to the com-
mit
tequitable
de
icoorrtoet
des
o. toheOadtn taMh ecay l
mmthei
jurisdiction to the Sheriffs' Court, and pointed out that the
mode in which the judge and officers of the Sheriffs' Court

were to be remunerated for their duties under the bill was
left in doubt, andthat it was clear the court would not have
the power of fixing the salaries, and that the fees were to
be thrown into hotch-potch with the county court fees.
The Remembrancer, however, thought it advisable that a
clause should be inserted in the bill on the report from the
select committee to insure two things-1. That the fees of
the Sheriffs' Court should be paid into the general fund of
that court; and 2, that the additional salaries to the judge
and officers of the court should be in the discretion of the
court, and he was directedto prepare such a clause. At that
meeting the judge of the Sheriffs' Court was present, and
stated that he had an appointment with the Lord Chancel-
lor that afternoon upon the subject of the bill. The com-
mittee thought it desirable that the Remembrancer should
submit their views with his clause to the Lord Chancellor,
and his lordship informed them that if they could agree on
a clause he would insert it in the bill. If they could not
agree his lordship stated that the two clauses prepared by
them should be submitted to him, which was done, and the
Lord Chancellor assured the Remembrancer and Mr. Kerr
that his lordship had selected Mr. Kerr's clause to insert in
the bill, and would do so on bringing up the report from the
select committee that evening. The following clause after-
wards appeared in the bill :—" The jurisdiction, power, and
authority given to the judges and officers of county courts
by any provisions in this act are hereby given to and are
directed to be exercised by the judge and officers of the
court held under the provisions of The London (City)
Small Debts Extension Act, 1852,' as fully as if such court
had been a county court, and such judge and officers shall
conform to the rules and orders made under the authority of
this act, provided always that the fees mentioned in the sche-
dule, or other such fees as shall be from time to time substi-
tuted for them under this act, and to be taken in the said
court, shall be paid into the general fund thereof, and that
the judge of the said court shall, out of the said general
fund, be paid a sum equal in amount to that which for the
time being may be receivable by the judges of the metropo-
litan county courts, or either of them." The Remembrancer
was of opinion that the clause would have the effect of in-
creasing the salary of the judge of the Sheriffs' Court to the
amount of the highest salary paid to a judge of a metropoli-
tan county court, which, under the bill, might be £l,BOO,
and, in addition thereto, the judge would receive the £3OO
a year now paid him as commissioner of the Central Crimi-
nal Court. The Remembrancer addressed a letter to the
Lord Chancellor, calling his attention to the clause, in
which he stated he was sure his lordship could only have
intended to remunerate the judge for the additional labour
thrown upon him by the bill, which the corporation were
fully prepared to do. By the clause, as submitted by Mr.
Kerr, and accepted by his lordship, the judge's salary was
increased without reference to the new duties conferred
upon him, and a further addition was made, which would
vary with the general equitable business, and might amount
to £2,100 a year. To this the Remembrancer received a
reply stating that he was correct in supposing that, by
that addition, the Lord Chancellor intended merely to give
Mr. Kerr the same advantages under the bill as any
county court judge would enjoy. The Remembrancer
having reported to the committee the steps he had taken,
the committee were of opinion that it was desirable that
the equitable jurisdiction given to the Sheriff's Court by the
bill as it stood should be conferred on the court. They
were, however, of opinion that they should be empowered
to carry out the objects proposed by the Remembrancer in
preparing the clause before set out, by endeavouring to ob-
tain the insertion, in the House of Commons, of a similar
clause, and another or other clauses, so as to give the citi-
zens, by means of the Sheriffs' Court, all the advantages
which the county courts confer in the other parts of the
metropolis, and enable the Sheriffs' Court to work in har-
mony with the county courts. The committee also pro-
ceeded to report on the reference of the letter from the
judge of the Sheriffs Court to the Lord Mayor. They stated
they had received from Mr. Kerr a statement in writing,
fully detailing all his proceedings since the County Courts
Equitable Jurisdiction Bill was brought into Parliament,
and after a careful investigation of the subject the commit-
tee were of opinion that, although there had been a breach
of privilege of the court, it was committed without due
consideration.

The adoption of the report was moved, and a long discus-
sion ensued, the chief point of which appeared to be as to
whether or not Mr. Commissioner Kerr had, in submitting
the clause alluded to to the Lord Chancellor, committed any
breach of the privileges of the court. Mr. Lawley approved
the report, except the last clause, and as an amendment
he moved the adoption of the report with that exception.
The amendment was, however, lost, upon which Mr. H. L.
Taylor proposed the following amendment :—" That, after
a careful investigation of the subject, the committee are of
opinion that there has been a breach of the privileges of the
court by Mr. Kerr, the judge of the Sheriffs' Court, in seek-
ing interviews with the Lord Chancellor, in order to get
a clause introduced into the bill affecting his personal in-
terests, without first having been brought before the court.
This amendment was ultimately agreed to, and the court
shortly afterwards adjourned.