A Philadelphia Lawyer in the London Courts

ANCELLOR-JURIES, COMMON AND SPECIAL-JUDGES AND HOW APPOINTED-JUDGES'

ted without detailing the exact limitations of jurisdi

hey were nearly all abolished by an Act of Parliament, or rather their functions were merged into the present far simpler system. In this ra

Court of Appeal. The High Court is the one of immediate interest because here are begun all litigations of ever

the great bulk of business, the Chancery Division, where equity suits are considered, and the Probate, Divorce and Admira

joys no higher title than that of "President." The number of judges in the different divisions is fixed by legislation and is determined by the extent of the business in each. In every court, except appeal courts, the evidenc

s. Nevertheless, a certain amount of progress has been made in this direction-probably all that would be wise-particularly in the admission of equitable defenses in common law actions and in the facility with which, o

e void if either House passes a resolution of veto within forty days. The consequences of this very sensible arrangement are that the vast improvements in practice which have so greatly facilitated and accelerated English

resent equity practice of the United States Courts. In them, testimony upon disputed facts is still elicited by an examiner-a method long since abandoned in progressive communities. Such an official, temporarily appointed by the court, possessing but limited power and often with little experience, merely presides, while a stenographer notes the oral evidence subsequently to be reproduced in typewriting or print. Thereafter, in some instances, a Master is appointed to consider the testimony and report his conclusions, while later

legislation, can forever abolish the obsolete system now in vogue. This was accomplished years ago in England and has also been brought about in some American States-such as Pennsy

alification, it being required only that they shall occupy realty the rental of which is equivalent to ￡10 a year. The result is to exclude those merely who are practically homeless, as such a rental represents less, perhaps, than

s renting for not less than ￡50 a year, or a farm worth ￡300 yearly, or they may be bankers, merchants, or persons upon whom minor titles have been bestowed. The employment of special juries is increasing in frequency at th

he equity litigation of England, although, for very limited sums, there is a concurrent jurisdiction in the County Courts. The separation which exists between practice in this court, and the b

a jury. Here are considered all matters concerning decedent's estates, but the Chancery Division has to do with the construction of wills and the distribution of property. Divorces occupy much time of this Court a

by a gilt anchor fixed upon a shield hung upon the wall behind the presiding judge,

0 and, in equity actions, to ￡500; while there is no jurisdiction whatever in the matters of divorce, libel or slander. In these courts, as will be explained later, barristers rarely appear but solicitors are allowed to act as advocates. The County Courts were established in 1846 and, as mentioned, were not disturbed in the reorganization of the courts in 1873, the idea being to bring the administration of justice closer to the people's homes and to reduce its cost. T

y of London and the Palatine Court and Court of Passage, in the north

nt of courts for the disposal of civil

e Lord Chancellor, ￡10,000. The appointing power-nominally the crown-is really the Lord Chancellor, who, unlike the Lord Chief Justice and all the other judges of England, is a political incumbent changing with the Government. It might be supposed from this fact that the Lord Chancellor would yield to a

he misses an eminent barrister from the front row, to find him on the bench, if alive. While this is the general rule, it is true that in rare and exceptional cases one hears of the appointment of a judge who is regarded by the profession as not being well qualified and his selection is attributed to influence. The just admiration which Americans entertain for the English judiciary as a body will in such instances not be reflected by the views of the English Bar, with opportuni

bly come to the conclusion that the high standing of the English judiciary, in the opinion of all

ers, but a sum which the unsuccessful party is condemned to pay to the successful party, the aim being to indemnify the side whom the event proves to have been in the right. If a litigant has incurred expense to obtain a judgmen

the production of some document, the Master imposes costs-say ￡2. 10s. 0d.-upon the party who refused to produce, or upon the party who, the

his own expense, and the Master allows only what he should have laid out in fees. Thus, in a petty action, caused by some personal pique, the plaintiff may have insisted that his solicitor retain a K. C. at fifty guineas and a junior at thirty-five guineas, involving a total expense, with three

cover ￡60, the balance of the purchase price of a motor car, costs were claimed of over ￡400, and actually allowed in a sum over ￡200. Though this was exceptio

unjust suits by impecunious plaintiffs-unable themselves to respond in costs if defeated-against richer defendants vulnerable for whatever the chances of war may have in store for them. To this criticism English lawyers can on

rue, but if they tend as well to obstruct the assertion of just rights and to stimul

is largely eliminated. If all the litigants were honest, and the law were an exact science, this might conduce to a deliberate consideration of the questions involved. But what American advocate, having confronted a disingenuous witness with

ry T

would not feel that half

er cross-examination-too much time for reflection. This impression may be due to differences in national temperament, and the examination may seem even rapid to an English listener. Perhaps the chief cause of the hesitancy is the fact that the examiner h

o represent; in other words, they have not "grown up with the case," and the facts are more like abstract propositions lately placed in their hands to be presented. It is not u

Judge So-and-so"-an English barrister says: "I conducted a case which Lord So-and-so tried." The English judge restrains counsel, often examines the witnesses, and his influence is quite openly exerted to guide

ey have too much respect for the court to hazard a rebuke. This is a very pretty, but hardly a satisfactory, explanation. Observation of many trials gives the impression, rather, that great laxity prevails as to what

lement of hearsay is more difficult to explain unless, indeed, the French view gains in England, which justifies the admission of hearsay on the ground that in the most important questions of life-for example, in respect to the reputation of a man whom one contemplates trusting, or of a woman one thinks of marrying-men act exclusively upon hearsay and never upon direct

world, and with a large insular population living in close touch with the water,

g vessels, as well as arrows to indicate winds and tides, are employed. All of these may be veered and shifted as the trial progresses, by means of thumb pins projecting beneath and capa

ne frequently sees elaborate models reproducing the locus in quo. In actions concerning floods or other occurren

a long white, lath-like stick, into the solicitors' well to point out some feature of a model while interrogating a witness, and afterwards charging the jury stick in hand. It is still more strange to hear a judge, whose name is known the world over, grav

ice of England and two famous colleagues did not grudge, upon a recent occasion, to hear an appeal involving nominally ￡22. 11s. 6d., payment on account having reduced the actual amount in controversy to ￡2. 11s. 6d. As the salaries of the occupants of the Bench were not less than ￡20,000 a year-to say n