The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-30 00:00:00

etv ttial; whet; the cAuse of action is I,sa than 201.

The mischief arisinz from delay i* particularly felt i,
''e great conirnerci-d district* at a distance from the

rnpolis. Where a cause of action alisAt prtviously
he Summer Ass.zes, hut not at such an interval as n
olmit of the cause being those ass:SO,' a def.- n
ant is often able at a small expense to set his creditors st
s-fiance for nine or ten months; the plaintiff cannot c'
Gs trial till the next Swing Assizes, n, ,r obtain executior
in the ordinary course before the following April. In
ether vises, the d-lay may amount to nine, eight, or sever
months; and it may be stated. that on the average, judg-
•nen, cannot be obt:ined thinugli the medium of a trial a,
the assizes in less than six months.

The average expense incurred by a plaintiff in prose.
eating a suit to judgment and execution cannot he esti
ina.ed at less than 301. ; that of the defendant at not les-
than 20/., indepen etre), of the costs of conveying any
ota•ntaining witnesses, which in a country cause consti
tote, with the expense of p rasing The record sad of en-
tering the canoe fir tri il, the must considerable part rat
'he costs. 'friese are the more serious where the plate
where the assizv are held is situated at a consideraba
distance from the populous parts of the county.
When a witness from Manchester or Liverpool is taker,
to the assizes at Lancaster, the coats of conveyance and
maintenance do not average less than from 71. to 8!. ; it
therefore frequently happens that the costs of a plaintiff,
when three or four witnesses ore necessary to make out
his case, amount to at least 501. or 60/., but often, we
believe, to a much larger stun.
The combined effects of delay and expense are necessa-
rily very injurious to the interests of the creditor who
sues for a debt to the amount of 201. or 301, or even to
a much larger amount. If he sue in the county court,
the defendant may remove the cause, as of course, with-
out entering into a rectgnizance into a surrior court,
where the plaintiff has to encounter as great an expense,
and greater delay, than if he had sued at first in the
higher court. If he sue in the higher court, he cannot
proceed to try the cause at the assizes, without incurring
the risk of extra costs to the amount of from 101. to
201. ; to these he is liable even though he should succeed,
not only in maintaining a verdict, but in levying execu-
tion. But the defendant may, pending a litigation of
several months, hove become bankrupt, insolvent, or have
removed himself and his property beyond the reach of
legal process ; other more pressing creditors, by successive
,rrests, may have swept away the whole of the property.
In any of these cases, the creditor would not only lose his
debt, but a much larger sum in coots.
The very probability that a creditor will be debarred by
the apprehension of trouble and expense from prosecuting
an action at law, affords an ad•ritionsl inducement to a
fraudulent debtor to set his creditor at defiance; and thus.
whilst the law offers to the creditor a mode of remedy
which is often only delusive, it in effect encourages the
debtor to sake a vexatious and fraudulent resistance.
We think it probable that nearly one half of the causes
tried at the assizes are for causes of action not exceeding
20/. each, and that the expense of litigating them is equal
to at least four times the aggregate amount actually re-
covered.

According to the practice of the superior courts, where
the cause of action does not amount to 201. the courts
will not grant a new trial except on a question of law.
Phis amounts in effect to a judicial declaration, founded,
it mutt be presumed, on legal experience, that it is better
that the applicint should be defeated in a just suit, or
should be compelled to pay an unjust demand under the
amount of 201., than that he should be allowed to incur
the expense of a second trial. The limit thus drawn by
the superior courts strongly supports the propriety of ex
eluding such actions altogether from their jurisdiction.
• • • • •

The organ7sation of the inferior mite is in general in-
trinsical!), defective even in its application to the lowest
class of actions, and the ordinary limits to their jurisdic-
tion confine their operation to very narrow boundaries.
On the other hand, the superior courts, constructed as
they must be with machinery adapted to the investigation
of c :uses of great cnoiplexity and importance, are far too
costly and dilsrory for she deci ion of suits of sm,ll im-
portance as to amount, and which seldom involve any
difficult and complex questions of law.
A total change of circuinvances has rendered a coure
of administering justice, which was no doubt once well
adapted to the exigencies of society, in many respects very
inconvenient. In ancient times causes of importance were
chiefly connected with real property, or wilt rights which
de ay did not place in jeopardy. Commercial dealings on
credit were inconsiderable, and suits for small debts to th,
amount of 251. or 301. of present money were, even after
the limitation of legal jutisdiction, confined to the interior
c

The rapid increase of population, wealth, and commerce
hos given rise to extensive credit, and has thus miturally
increased to a great extent the claims on public justice;
ne A and complicated ri lari ins have given rise to a sy-tem
of laws adapted to the exigencies. of commerce, and have
rendered necessary a considerable change in the practical
administration iif the law.

Among the many places which have greatly increased in
wealth and population, the towns of Manchester and Li•
verpool in particular, formerly small and inconsiderable.
have attained to a degree of commercial importance which
place them neatly on an equality with the metropolis it-
self, and great inconvenience is experienced in these towns
iron the want of more ample provision for the adminis-
tration of justice.

Upon the whole, it is our duty to represent that the
inad qu,o7 of the present courts, in causes o' action flow
40.. to at least 201., amounts almost to a drnial of jus-
tice; and that we believe the complaint, made by num-
ber., that creditors are, from want of sufficient means to
obtain redress, tHiged to abandon their just demands ;
that debtors are from the same cause tempted to a disho-
nest re,istance, and that the result is great injury to public
morals and privive tights.

2dly. We now present for consideration some sugges-
tions as to the means of remedy.

These must consist either in alterations made in the su-
perior or inferior courts which now exist, or in the era-
hlisliment of new local courts.

I, appears to ua that no adequate alteration can be made
in the superior courts.

The machinery adapted to the ends of judicial investi-
gation in causes of great complexity and large atneun'
must necessarily be too costly for the trial of causes of
small amount and little complexity.
It would be very difficult, with the present number of
Judges, that ae.izes for the trial of causes in the country
stiould be held more than twice a•year.
* * 411

With respect to the interior courts at present established,
we think their defects so numerous and complicated, that
it is easier to devise new institutions than to introduce
effectual improvements in those which exist.

It appears to us to be expedient that the whole kingdom
should be divided into districts, for the purpose of eats-
blishing local courts, upon an uniform system, and that
provision should be made for the trial of causes at such
places as shall be best accommodated to public convenience.
and shall most effectually exclude the evil of expense in the
conveyance and maintenance of witnesses (which now con-
stitute the principal part of the costs of a cause), and the
inconvenience now felt in detaining parties, jurors, and
witnesses at a distant place of trial. The limits of such
districts must of course depend much on the extent of po-
pulation, rind the mode in which it is distributed ; but iti
order to effectuate the general principle, it would be desir
able that courts for the trial of causes should be held in
every large market town containing a population of 20,000;
that the suitors in a town containing 10,000 inhabitant.
should not be under the necessity of travelling more that,
ten miles to the court; and that the utmost distance o'
parties from the nearest place of trial should not exceeii
from 20 to 25 miles.

personalhej action.orisdicti wh, r
thejurisdictionthe demand
local courts
eanl
,
d,
shouldi:t
2a/1.1,ht t
a except cases in which any right t"
t
or copybold, or to tithe, toll, fair, make?,
franchise, or any title under commission oi
,elesto tony
oappears extendot
teix.eexceed
e e t
d freehold t( us
0
bankruptcy, is in question.
We have been iuducel by several considerations (Rom.
of w ich have been already noticed) to fix upon the sun
of 201., as the limit to the jurisdiction of the local courts
That sum, taking into the account the change in tl .
value of money, is much less than 40s. was when it vs,..