A Philadelphia Lawyer in the London Courts Part 7

At a certain hour the Master takes his seat at a desk with a printed list of "applications without counsel" or "applications with counsel." He nods to the uniformed officer at the door who admits the solicitors engaged in the cause which happens to be first on the list of cases "without counsel." The solicitors stand before the Master with a shelf upon which to rest books or papers; one side then states its demand and the other its objection in the briefest and most direct manner. The Master's immediate oral decision, accompanied by imposition of the costs and a few scratches of his pen on the back of the summons, indicates to the officer the opening of the door to admit the next case. By actual count twenty-seven cases may thus be disposed of in one hour and thirty-two minutes--an average of a little more than three minutes each. Of course there is a right of appeal, which, however, is rarely exercised.

As the door opens two solicitors hurry in. There are no salutations nor introductory remarks and the business proceeds abruptly:

_Plaintiff's solicitor_: "Master, we claim 50 judgment for rent."

_Master to defendant's solicitor_: "Do you admit the amount?"

_Defendant's solicitor_: "Yes, but we claim a set-off."

_Master_: (endorsing a few words on the summons) "Judgment for rent 50 with stay of execution until counter claim is tried."

_Defendant's solicitor_: "If you please, Master."

This expression is the universal vernacular with which the defeated party accepts the judgment of a master or judge in all courts. The expression is not an interrogation but is equivalent to "as you please."

Out they go and the next enter; here the defendant asks for delay, and gets seven days which is endorsed on the summons and requires a minute.

Then comes an application under "order XIV" for judgment for 1,000.

Defendant requires four days' delay.

_Master_: "What is the defence?"

_Defendant's solicitor_: "Master, I don't know--a recent agreement has been made between the parties which I have not yet seen."

_Master_: "I'll give you four days, but you must pay the costs of the adjournment; thirteen s.h.i.+llings and fourpence."

_Defendant's solicitor_: "If you please, Master."

The next summons for judgment. As this is denied, the parties agree to try it before the Master on the following Thursday without a jury.

Then follows a summons by defendant upon plaintiff for particulars of goods sold and delivered. Both parties are dealers in j.a.panese bulbs, and the sale was made subject to arrival in England safe and sound. The defendant demands particulars of the plaintiff as to who were his customers. The plaintiff objects to disclosing his business and the written summons, containing the request for particulars, is gone over rapidly by the Master. Such parts of the request as, in his opinion, ought not to have been demanded, because they pry into the plaintiff's private affairs, are eliminated by a stroke of the Master's pen and an order is made at the bottom in an abbreviated form, imposing the costs of the summons upon the plaintiff. This means that the plaintiff is obliged to furnish the defendant, in so many days, all the particulars which the Master did not strike out, and must pay the defendant the costs of the application.

A moment is consumed in giving judgment in an uncontested case for 1,800 with costs of 8. 16s. 0d.

Then comes a breach of promise case. The defendant asks for an order upon the plaintiff for a statement of claim and discovery of correspondence, which is granted. As most of the witnesses are in London, the defendant wants to try the case here, but the plaintiff wishes to try it in Manchester where the parties live. The Master thinks it is easier to bring two people up from Manchester than to take a dozen down from London.

Next is a summons for directions:

_Master_: "Statement of claim in ten days."

_Plaintiff's solicitor_: "Yes, Master."

_Master_: "Defence in ten days."

_Defendant's solicitor_: "Yes, Master."

_Master_: "No counter claim?"

_Defendant's solicitor_: "No, Master."

_Master_: "Doc.u.ments?"

_Both solicitors_: "Large number."

_Master_: "All parties in London?"

_Both solicitors_: "Yes."

_Master_: "Any question of law?"

_Both solicitors_: "No."

_Master_: "Next case."

And he at once endorses a few words on the bottom of the summons.

Then a defendant appears in person:

_Master_: "Do you owe the 26?"

_Defendant_: "Yes, sir."

_Plaintiff's solicitor_: "We only want judgment for 21 because this morning he paid 5 on account, and he agrees to pay 3 a week, so that we will not issue execution if he does this."

_Master_: "I'll give you judgment generally for 21, but you write defendant a letter stating that you will not issue execution as you have just stated."

Another defendant appears in person:

_Defendant_: "I've got no defence, all I want is time."

_Plaintiff's solicitor_: "We'll do nothing until Monday as we think he means to pay."

_Master_: "All right, it is understood you will do nothing until Monday."

The details of practice before these Masters would be beyond the scope of the present writing, suffice it to say that rules have been promulgated from time to time, and are constantly being improved upon, having for their object the simplification of procedure, the rapid despatch of business and the settling of all minor questions which may arise in a case before actual trial. Thus, "Order XIV,"

just referred to, enables a Master to enter judgment when the defence averred, even if true, would not be effectual, or when the defence is obviously frivolous, although, of course, the rights of the defendant are preserved by the privilege of appeal, the judgment, meantime, binding his property. Again, the "summons for directions" is to enable the Master to give general directions as to how the parties shall proceed, the intervals of time to be allowed for exchange of copies of doc.u.ments, taking foreign testimony and what not.

One of the cleverest contrivances in the practice before Masters is the "tender of damages in tort without admitting liability." A defendant may tender, say, 500. If plaintiff does not accept it, the trial ensues--the jury, of course, being in ignorance of the tender. If the judgment be for defendant, or for more than the tender, that is the end of the matter. But if the judgment be for less than the tender, a large deduction for costs is made from the judgment, and inures to the defendant's benefit. This has enormously reduced the volume of accident cases and has also curbed the often wildly extravagant demands and unjust results in such actions generally recognized as evils difficult to deal with.

In short, the system of Masters in England works admirably. It is entirely adaptable to American courts, the details and modifications which might prove necessary being fitted to local conditions, but in any such adaptation, the general purpose should be kept in view, namely, that when a case appears upon a trial list it shall have already been pruned of all non-essential preliminary details and is forthwith to be actually tried upon its merits; the court's time being too precious to be expended upon the subsidiary side issues.

CHAPTER XI

THE POLICE COURTS