, 1913-02-05

mlSuSed, then 1t IS time Tor the legislature
to step in III order to prevent such m'suses.
One way to stop mlsuses aud unnecessa-
ny delay with repeated summons would be
to make it more difficult to obtain Royal
Grant to Appeal III spite of the term Of
appeal allowed by law having expired. For
instance here is an instance of how the laws
may be misused and cases delayed. A client
of the speaker was by Town Court Judgment
acquitted in q ease brought against him
provided he confirmed by oath having paid
Il certain sum Of money.
Date of ldgment january 1912, Sum
mons to Upper Court by opposing parry in
August to appear at Upper Court Novbr.
On the day fixed the lawyer for my client
appeared at the Upper Court but no case
was brought in. Through negligence, nearly
a year was lost, as a new summons to Upper
Court was served for May 1913.
This is only one out Of many instances
where cases are unnecessarily delayed from
pure negligence. The Speaker was convinc-
ed that the Government either by taking
the initiative for BY law to have similar
rules for Upper Court ummons as pertain
to luminous to the Supreme Court and
demanding stringent reasons for granting
permission to appeal after expiration Of APP
peal terms, will be able to put a stop to
these unnecessary delays.
Besides lawyers here in the West Indies
are appointed by the King and Officials and
therefore the Government has also u certain
control with them us to the manner they
conduct themselves, and this might also be
brought to bear on the lawyers to prevent
unnecessary delay,
Is Ercelleucy answered that his position
to this Interpolation was the same as to the
other ones. He could only stick to the word
ing of the interpolation and not enter into
any discussion about the case mentioned by
the hon. Member. His Exceuency would
then say, that he agreed with the hon. Mem
Der thpt there was q hole in the legislation,
and he was wiling to place the matter be-
fore the Home Government.
LIST Member for Ghristianated Town
(~StuheDtann) thanked His ExceiIeucy.
Ihe matter closed.
Inter pellation 3.
lst Member for Christiansted Town
CStlhen2anu) read the Interpolation and
said that he felt sure thAt Government would
agree with him when he called the attention
to the fact that the sugar prices and the
whole economical circumstances OF the Is
land in 1850 when the fees were fixed, we're
far more prosperous than now.
The Speaker would mention some in
stances of the fees fixed here iii compa-
rison with fees in the Mother Country
for some grants. A marriage contract. The
fees were IS or 80 doilars, now the people
could not write such a contract themselves
and had to 60 to q lawyer, the amount then
rose at least to 100 dollars. Home the fee
was 1877 so Kroner equal to 35 dollars. a
grant for adopting u child. The fee was
rs dollars, home it was Kr. SO so equal to
9 dollars. To lenye an executor, Is dollars,
home $ dollars. To get q lost bond onnuII-
ed, 25 dollars, at home Kr. 33.5 or 50. 1t
would be seen, that the fees were nearly 3
times as much as IN Denmark.
1t would moi be any loss for the Colonial
Treasury, if these fees were reduced, for
people would make more use of the grants,
if the fees were more reasonable. AS far
MS the Speaker remembered, he had I. inst.
in his time of 30 years as lawyer only known
of 3 marriage contracts. Then there were
the Dealing Court fees, these last were out
here charged on the gross amount, III Den
mark they were charged on the net amount,
and only a fractional percent, while here
2oJo. The Speaker mentioned an instance
where a wife had to pay $1,000 to the Deal
ING Court for permission 10 take over the
property for herself and children after the
Il $500 4LA ,ntN{r