LIE) RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVLRSITY 
 
 Of ILLINOIS
 
 / 
 THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF 
 
 COUNTY COURTS 
 
 CONSIDERED, 
 
 WITH A VIEW TO A REFORM 
 
 THE CONSTITUTIOI^ AND PROCEDURE 
 
 LOCAL COURTS OF JUSTICE. 
 
 RICHARD HAEINGTON, 
 
 Judge of County Courts, Circuit No. 22. 
 
 SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO 
 
 MaxttQitx : 
 
 DEIGHTON AND SON.
 
 ^JJ»i 
 
 U1U<
 
 INTEODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 The following paper has been -written at intervals during a busy year. Much 
 of it has been the employment of hours which would have been otherwise 
 wasted in travelling and waiting, like those an account of which for 1874 will 
 be found in Appendix B. Although the paper itself is but short, the com- 
 pletion of the Appendices required for the verification of the theories on which 
 the suggestions made are fovmded has been in itself no small labour. It would 
 have been idle, it was thought, to submit to the judgment of those who it is 
 hoped may be induced to read this paper, specixlations as to the working of 
 the suggested alterations, without laying before the reader fully the process by 
 which those speculations are arrived at, and the facts on which they are 
 founded. This work involved in the compilation of Appendix C alone, the 
 doing of about 3,600 addition, subtraction, and division sums, and in many 
 instances the checking of the accuracy of the results by other processes. 
 
 The consequence has been that the work has occupied a much longer time 
 than it was originally expected that it would have taken, and d\iringits progress 
 the greatest revolution in practice and procedure which the Courts at West- 
 minster Hall have ever seen has been consummated, and the County Courts 
 themselves have been affected by three important Acts of Parliament, and 
 their procedure entirely remodelled to admit of the application of the new 
 principles thereto by the Consolidated County Court Orders, 1875. 
 
 These Orders, and the Statute 38 and 39 Vict,, c. 60 (County Courts Act, 
 1S75), affect in a great measure the questions considered in the following 
 paper, and it is an encouragement to its publication to find, that although by 
 a process widely different from that suggested by its author, the legislation 
 both of Parliament and of the Standing Committee of County Court Judges 
 is tending in the direction towards which he urges more complete and speedy 
 progress. 
 
 Much, for instance, that it is hoped would result from giving effect to the 
 proposal for increased facilities for admission, in the way of the separation of 
 mere debt collecting from litigious business, may be expected to follow from 
 the extension of the practice of issuing default summonses provided for by 
 section 1 of the County Courts Act, 1875. The usefulness of the Act has, 
 however (it is submitted), been much curtailed by the width of the enactment 
 and the narro-miess of the rule (Consolidated Order IV. 5) framed, not to give 
 effect to, but to limit the operation of the Statute. By this rule all defend- 
 ants who are domestic or menial servants, labourers, artificers, handicraftsmen, 
 miners, or persons engaged in manual labour, in other words, 90 per cent, of 
 County Court defendants, are excluded from the operation of the Act, unless 
 the claim is more than £5, or the goods sold were to be used in the way of 
 defendant's trade. The reason which operated on the minds of the framers 
 of the rule has not as yet been made public, but it may well be_ supposed to 
 have arisen out of the necessity of imposing a check on plaintiffs, who on 
 a default sun:^.^ons under the Statute can claim judgment for payment forth- 
 ■\vith, or by such instalments only as they choose to accept, and are not in this 
 matter subject to the order of the Court; or else out of the difficiilty of 
 enforcing the transmission of a wTitten notice of defence by illiterate 
 defendants. In the case of the first alternative the difficulty would be avoided 
 (as the author of this paper during the progress of the Act through Parliament 
 ventured to suggest shoiild be done,) by making the judgment for payment 
 forthwith, or by such instalments as the Judge or Registrar should order. In 
 the case of the second alternative it is got rid of by the suggestion contained 
 in the text for making the notice of defence oral to the serving bailiff. 
 
 And it is to be observed that the control of the mode of payment, except 
 when the defendant has property capable of being taken in execution, in 
 which case the Court would not order pajTuent by instalments in the first 
 instance, must in all cases be lUtimately vested in the Coiut, because the
 
 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 payment has to be enforced by commitment summons, and according to what 
 is the nearly universal practice no warrant would be allowed to issue so long 
 as the debtor paid off his debt by such instalments as might under all the 
 circumstances be reasonable. 
 
 Again, Consolidated Order XII., rule 2, if administered in a judicious 
 spii-it, will do much to countervail the inconveniences arising from the absence 
 of any notice to the plaintiff of the nature of the defence in ordinary cases. 
 
 Another important novelty introduced by the County Courts Act, 1875, is 
 the provision for the use of Assessors — but here again the adoption of a series 
 of rules which will, there is reason to fear, interfere with the usefulness of the 
 reform, is to be regretted. By Consolidated Order XXXII., a kind of 
 panel of Assessors is to be made for each Court, from which the individuals to 
 act are to be selected, and their remuneration is to be uniform at one guinea or 
 two guineas, according as the subject matter of the action does not or does 
 exceed £20. The creation of the proposed panel will, it is feared, unduly 
 limit the choice of Assessors in the particular case, while the uniform ' 
 remuneration is too liberal in the case of one, and too niggardly in the case of 
 the other end of the social class from which the Assessors ought, if they are to 
 include persons of all trades, to be selected. Nor does the pecuniary amount 
 of the question at issue appear to be at all a fair criterion of the quality of 
 Assessors required. 
 
 Take the case of an action on a building contract, the work done under 
 which was of the value of £100, but has been paid for lay instalments, reducing 
 the claim to £10, the question between the parties being whether this £10 had 
 been forfeited by plaintiff's non-performance of the whole contract. In such 
 a case the transactions to be investigated and the mercantile skill and 
 experience required to assist the Judge might be very great, yet he could 
 have the assistance of no Assessor who would not work for a guinea a day, 
 while, on the other hand, in an action on a similar contract covering work to 
 the extent of £25 only, and involving, probably, questions of far less difficulty, 
 the Assessor would be entitled to two guineas. 
 
 In conclusion, the author of this paper trusts that it will not be sum- 
 marily thrown aside, because some of the more important changes which 
 he proposes may not commend themselves to the reader. He has dealt in 
 many matters, with small points as well as large, and while he refers to and 
 incorporates the apology for the boldness of the task he has undertaken, with 
 which the following paper concludes, he cannot help cherishing the hope that 
 even if the mass of what he has written be chaff only, there may still be 
 at least a few grains of corn to be extracted by the winnowing of the impartial 
 and forbearing critic. 
 
 Whitbourne Court, Worcester, March, 1876.
 
 I. 
 
 ON THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNTY COURT AS 
 AT PRESENT CONSTITUTED. 
 
 The County Court as at present constituted comlDines in itself 
 three distinct functions, which, for convenience of reference, 
 have in this paper been divided into Classes I., IL, III. 
 
 I. — It is an office for the Registration of Judgments for 
 
 admitted and undisputed debts. 
 II. — It supplies a machinery for the recovery of small 
 debts, performing the^ functions of the old Courts of 
 Requests. 
 III. — It acts as a Local Court of Justice for the 
 cognizance, with a few exceptions, of all matters 
 cognizable before the Superior Courts in London, as 
 hitherto constituted, or the High Court of Justice of 
 the future, excluding causes Criminal and Matri- 
 monial, and jurisdictions of an appellate nature.* 
 Its jurisdiction in Bankruptcy is limited by 
 locality only, while its other jurisdictions are 
 limited both by locality and by the pecuniary 
 amount or value of the subject matter of litigation. 
 The limitation of jurisdiction as to value is purely 
 arbitrary, and varies with the nature of the remedy 
 sought. In respect of certain matters connected 
 with Friendly Societies the County Court has a 
 jurisdiction exclusive and limited only by locality. 
 These several functions will be observed at once to be of a 
 character wholly distinct from one another. 
 Class I. is purely ministerial. 
 Class II. is partly ministerial and partly judicial. 
 Class III. is purely judicial. 
 The whole of these functions are at present discharged by 
 the same Judge, or by the Registrar of the Court acting as his 
 deputy. 
 
 The object of the following pages is to show how by the 
 separation of these diverse functions from one another, and by 
 reforms of the procedure and distribution of the Courts, local 
 justice might be administered to the greater relief of the 
 Superior Courts from small causes, with a less waste of time and 
 labour than is at present expended upon it, and with a reduction 
 of the existing establishments and expenses. 
 
 * It has now an Appellate Jurisdiction under the Agricult\iral Holdings Act, 
 1876.
 
 When first instituted under tlie Statute 9 and 10 Vict., c. 
 95, County Courts were intended to discharge almost exclusively 
 the functions comprised in Classes I. and II. ; and these two 
 Classes still form numerically by far the larger proportion 
 of their present business, although the time of the Judge, 
 (so far as it is not occupied in travelling), and his mental 
 powers, are almost exclusively occupied with the matters 
 comprised in Class III. 
 
 It seems to have been assumed by those who devised the 
 County Courts, that the debts for the recovery of which it 
 would become necessary to invoke their assistance, would, 
 as a rule, be the subjects matter of actual litigation ; and 
 therefore, although inducements in the way of remission of fees 
 are held out to debtors to admit their creditors' claims, yet in 
 every case, although the defendant may never have disputed 
 the debt, and there may be really no subject of litigation 
 in difference, the regular steps in a lawsuit must be taken — a 
 summons to appear served on the defendant, and, with certain 
 exceptions regulated by 38 and 39 Vict,, c. 50, s. 1, an actual 
 hearing of the cause by a Judicial Officer, in the first instance the 
 Judge himself — since the Statute 30 and 31 Vict., c. 142, the 
 Judge or Registrar, before the plaintiff can entitle himself to the 
 process of the Court to enforce payment of his debt by 
 execution. 
 
 Another result of the view thus taken is that it has been 
 considered necessary to establish a separate Court -with its own 
 distinct office and officers in nearly every market town in the 
 kingdom, and to require the Judge to attend there in person 
 periodically at longer or shorter intervals, according to the 
 importance of the place. 
 
 Experience has, however, shown that in the vast majority of 
 cases no defence is attempted or suggested, and the whole duty 
 of the Court on the hearing consists, if the defendant or his 
 agent is present, in giving judgment by consent, or if he is 
 absent, in seeing that the plaintiff produces the necessary 
 technical evidence of his claim. The latter of these processes 
 tends rather to defeat than to promote justice, by leading to the 
 nonsuit or adjournment of the cases of plaintiffs having really 
 an indisputable right to judgment, but who, from ignorance, or 
 from speculation on the defendant's attendance and admission, 
 come unprepared with the proper evidence; there being at 
 present no machinery for giving them information (unless they 
 have proceeded under 38 and 39 Vict., c. 50, s. 1) whether 
 defendant intends to defend or not. 
 
 It is submitted that it is not necessary to provide the
 
 machinery of litigation for the collection of admitted or 
 
 undisputed debts. 
 
 The cases comprised in Class II. do involve occasionally, but 
 very rarely, the determination of some disputed question of law 
 or fact requiring careful investigation and skilled knowledge of 
 law, but the ordinary questions which arise in this class of cases 
 are, according to the experience derived from the business of a 
 large rural Cu-cuit, of remarkable sameness, and consist of — 
 
 A. — The adjustment of errors in the books of account 
 and receipts of the parties, and the detection of 
 fraudulent alterations. 
 B. — The determination of the question of fact between 
 plaintiff and defendant, whether the goods, the price 
 of which is sued for, have been in fact delivered, as 
 alleged, and whether they have been returned, paid 
 for, or the like. 
 C. — The determination of the question whether, under 
 the circimistances proved, the wife or child of the 
 defendant was his agent to contract the debt sued 
 for, or to admit its existence. 
 D. — The determination cf the question whether, under 
 the circumstances proved, the contract of the 
 defendant amounted to a verbal guarantee for the 
 debt of another void under the Statute of Frauds, 
 or whether the defendant contracted as principal 
 debtor. 
 E.- — The determination of the question whether, under 
 the circumstances proved, the defendant has 
 rendered himself liable as executor de son tort of 
 the orginal debtor. 
 The questions of fact arising under the heads A and B rarely 
 present any difi&culty, except such as arises from the ignorance, 
 stupidity, or dishonesty of the parties, and would, in the vast 
 majority of cases, be as easily determined by any sensible man 
 of business capable of judging of the demeanour of witnesses, 
 as by the most accomplished la^^yer. 
 
 The questions of law arising under C, D, and E, scarcely ever 
 present a difficulty which could not be easily solved by a lawyer 
 having a fair knowledge of the text books written on the 
 subjects. 
 
 There is, however, a small, but very small percentage of 
 matters included in Class II., which raise questions of fact 
 of such serious importance as affecting the credit and position of 
 the parties, or of so complicated a nature in themselves, or 
 questions of law of such novelty and importance, as in either
 
 '8 
 
 case to require the judgment of a skilled and experienced Judge, 
 with or without the assistance of a Jury or Assessors. 
 >' Class III., on the other hand, comprises cases, the majority of 
 which are not actions for debt at all, and which frequently raise 
 questions for consideration both of law and fact as important and 
 difficult in themselves as those ordinarily submitted to the 
 consideration of the Superior Courts. These cases, although 
 numerically only a small percentage of the causes entered, 
 occupy, as has been already remarked, the larger proportion of 
 the time of the Judge spent actually on the Bench. 
 
 Under the system at present in existence the course of 
 proceeding, except so far as it has been modified, in respect of 
 debts over £5. and trade debts by 38 and 39 Vict., c. 50, s. 1, 
 and as to bills of exchange by 18 and 19 Vict., c. 67, is the same 
 for all cases to whichever class they belong ; and consists of the 
 entry by the creditor or plaintiff of a plaint in the ofdce of the 
 Court ; the service on the defendant by the officer of the Court 
 of a summons, commanding him to appear at the day appointed 
 for the sitting of the Court ; and the hearing, when the cause is 
 tried, or judgment entered for the plaintiff by consent or admission 
 as the case may be. 
 
 The fees taken for these proceedings alone amount, in cases 
 under 40s. to Is. in the £ or 5 per cent, for entry and service, 
 with an additional fee of Is. for service in cases above 40s., and 2s. 
 in the £ or 10 per cent, for the hearing, or in cases of admission, 
 or judgment by default, under 38 and 39 Vict., c. 50, s. 1, Is. in 
 the £ or 5 per cent., thus making the Court fees from 10 per 
 cent, to 15 percent, at the least, without reckoning the fees for 
 incidental matters, such as executions, and the like. This is 
 a heavy tax, and yet it is only the very large Courts that 
 are remunerative. 
 
 Let us take an instance — Daventry — which is a small Court 
 on Circuit No. 22. In 1872 the plaints entered in this Court 
 were 558, the amount recovered was £1,594, and the total fees 
 from all sources were £195. or between 12 per cent, and 13 per 
 cent, on this amount. There were up to September, 1874, 15 
 Courts on Circuit No. 22, of which, in that year, 5 were holden 
 6 times, 9, of which Daventry was one, 11 times, and one 12 times. 
 If the salary of the Judge be approximately apportioned between 
 the several Courts in proportion to the number of their sittings in 
 that year, the share of Daventry would be within a minute 
 fraction of £116. 10s., thus leaving £78. 10s. to provide for the 
 Judge's travelling expenses to and from the Court, the salary of 
 the Eegistrar and Bailiffs, the rent of Com-t room, and all other 
 establishment and incidental expenses — a sum manifestly
 
 insufficient for these purposes. Indeed the Eegistrar's salary alone* 
 for that Court would amount, on the scale sanctioned by 19 and 
 20 Vict., c. 108, s. 82, to £191. 12s. Od., or on that substituted by 
 29 and 30 Vict., c. 14, s. 14, to £157. 5s. 7d. 
 
 It would occupy the time of the reader unnecessarily to insert 
 here the details of the proportionate expenses of all the other 
 Courts upon this Circuit, but it will be seen on reference to 
 Appendix A, which contains a table showing the amount 
 applicable to the maintenance of the establishment of everyone 
 of these Courts, as that Circuit existed up to September, 1874, 
 that after payment of the Eegistrar's and a proportionate part of 
 the Judge's salaries, in all cases except two, a minus quantity 
 remains, and that the smaller and less important the Court, the 
 larger in proportion is the deficiency. In this table the 
 Registrars' salaries have all been calculated on the lower scale, 
 so that the deficiency on the whole Circuit is really greater than 
 that shown. 
 
 It scarcely needs argument to prove, that it is desirable, 
 if it can be done with due regard to the provision of proper 
 facilities for the recovery of debts, to get rid of these smaller 
 and unprofitable Courts. 
 
 II 
 
 ON THE EXISTING MODE OF PEOCEDUEE IN THE 
 COUNTY COUET. 
 
 The County Court having been, as has been pointed out, estab- 
 lished in its present form primarily as a Small Debts Court, and 
 the establishment having taken place at a time when the science 
 of special pleading was in full vigour in the Superior Courts, 
 and was attracting no small share of popular odium, no provision 
 whatever for the use of pleadings was made in actions com- 
 menced in the County Courts, the summons merely stating 
 enough to show whether the action is for debt, or unliquidated 
 damages, and sometimes, but not always, according to the 
 diligence or negligence of the Eegistrar and his clerks, whether 
 it is framed in contract or in tort. In actions in which the 
 demand is more than 40s., particulars are required, which, 
 according to the practice which has grown up, and has now 
 received the official sanction of the new Consolidated rules, 
 assume in actions of tort or for unliquidated damages, the form of 
 a more or less loosely worded declaration of the past or statement
 
 10 
 
 «of claim indorsed on the writ of the future, and in those of 
 debt of an ordinary tradesman's bill. The defendant is 
 empowered to set up, without notice to the plaintiff (except 
 only in default summonses of his bare intention to defend), any 
 defence, except set off, infancy, coverture, a statute of limitations, 
 discharge under a Banlo-upt or Insolvent Act, or a counterclaim 
 against the plaintiff or a third person, tender, statutory defence, 
 or " equitable relief." This is the phrase used in Consolidated 
 Order IX., r. 15. It is, with all submission conceived to be an 
 unfortunate expression, because by the Judicature Act, 36 and 37 
 Vict., c. 66., s. 24, subs. 4, the Court is bound to take notice of all 
 equities arising incidentally in the course of the cause, to the 
 same extent as would have been done by the Court of Chancery, 
 and the existence of this rule can only so long as Order XII., 
 r. 2, is permissive and not obligatory, raise difficulties in applying 
 this section to the case of defendants who have given no notice 
 of defence, and in discriminating between "equitable relief" which 
 should have been claimed by notice and equities arising incident- 
 ally. If he desires to set up any of these special defences, the 
 defendant is obliged to give five clear days' notice of his intention 
 to set up such defence. In proceedings under 38 and 39 Vict., c. 
 50, s. 1, the defendant is obliged, if he intends to defend, to give 
 notice of his intention, but he is not (except in the case of set off, 
 &c.,) obliged to state any specific ground of defence, but may, in 
 effect, plead " nil debet," and prove anything. This system of 
 procedure, when applied to cases in which there is a real question 
 in litigation, is productive of a waste of time and money out of 
 all proportion to the amounts at stake. Thus, the rule enabling 
 a plaintiff to sue for an amount under 40 s. without any par- 
 ticulars at all, applies equally, whether the amount claimed 
 includes the whole of the transactions between the parties, or 
 whether it is the balance of an unsettled account, extending, it 
 may be, over years, and including considerable sums, while the 
 rule as to the delivery of particulars in actions over 40 s. is 
 constantly evaded by the indolence of the plaintiff who delivers, 
 and the carelessness of the Kegistrar's clerks who receive as 
 particulars such words as "Balance of account," "Bill delivered," 
 and the like, containing no greater information than the body 
 of the summons. The looseness of practice in this respect, and 
 the want of particulars in cases where a balance of account 
 under 40s. is sued for, are productive of serious inconvenience 
 both to Judges and suitors in defended cases, by necessi- 
 tating adjournments for the purpose of compelling the delivery 
 of such particulars as will enable the former to investigate 
 the matters of account, which are most frequently in
 
 11 
 
 dispute in such cases, or by wasting the time of both in 
 clearing away the husk of immaterial matter which envelopes 
 the kernel in dispute. These remarks, it is to be understood, 
 are to be taken as a rule to refer to small cases only, such as 
 are comprised in Class II. In those comprised in Class I. 
 particulars are unnecessary, and in those comprised in Class III. 
 the parties usually have professional assistance. In these last, 
 if the particulars are insufficient, the nature of the items in 
 dispute is usually orally stated with sufficient precision to enable 
 the Judge to decide the case. 
 
 With regard to the notices of defence, it is, with all due 
 respect for those who originally framed it, conceived that the 
 present system is useless for any good purpose. The subjects 
 matter are arbitrarily selected, and for no apparent reason which 
 would not be equally applicable to any other defence, the onus 
 jprobandi of which is on the defendant — payment, or accord and 
 satisfaction, for example, while there is no reason for giving the 
 plaintiff notice of the defence of the Statute of Limitations, a 
 defence, the existence of which, if there is any pretence for 
 setting it up, must necessarily be within his own knowledge. 
 In the second place, the warning which is given to the defendant 
 on the back of the summons, although it will not now, as here- 
 tofore, describe the defences, notice of which is required, by their 
 technical names, is usually printed so as to be very unlikely 
 to attract the attention of uneducated persons. By the 
 Consolidated County Court Orders, 1875, Order XII., rule 
 2, power is given to the defendant to give notice of dis- 
 claimer, and to limit and state his defence, though it may not be 
 one of which special notice is required by the practice, and the 
 Judge is directed in exercising his discretion as to costs to 
 take into consideration the circumstance whether the defendant 
 has or has not availed himself of the power given by this rule. 
 The rule has come too recently into operation to afford any test 
 of its practical working, and it remains to be seen in what spirit 
 it will be acted on by the Judges ; but, assuming the fullest 
 effect to be given to it, it is at best but persuasive only. If the 
 practice of giving notice of defence is, as the framers of the rule 
 seem to imply, beneficial, why should it not be made obligatory ? 
 It is difficult to imagine what hardship is inflicted on a defend- 
 ant who has a meritorious defence by obliging him to disclose 
 it, while it is obviously but justice that a defendant who has 
 none should be compelled to disclose that circumstance at the 
 earKest possible period in the litigation. 
 
 The mischiefs arising from the present state of the practice 
 are then ; —
 
 12 
 
 1. — In cases where matters of account are involved, the 
 necessity for adjournments for the production of 
 further and better particulars, or the waste of time 
 incurred in conducting the investigation without 
 them. 
 2. — The necessity under which the plaintiff is of coming 
 in all cases in which his attendance is required at 
 all, except when the defendant has availed himself 
 of the power given by Consolidated Order XII., r. 2, 
 prepared with evidence on every matter which can 
 possibly be put in issue, at the risk of being non- 
 suited or having his case adjourned if he does not, 
 entailing thus in many instances an expense heavy 
 in proportion to the amount in dispute on either 
 himself or the defendant. 
 3. — The necessity of granting adjournments to enable 
 defendants to set up special defences, of which, 
 through ignorance or inadvertence, they have omitted 
 to give the requisite notice. 
 In that class of actions, which, up to the coming into operation 
 of the Judicature Act were known as equity suits, although the 
 plaintiff had to file a statement in the nature of a bill of com- 
 plaint, the defendant was not bound to file any answer, and the 
 parties were directed to come to the hearing prepared with all 
 the evidence necessary to enable the Judge to make a final 
 decree. If this rule had been literally complied with, more 
 waste of money would ensue than takes place in practice. In 
 practice, in most cases which have come under the author's 
 notice, the professional advisers of the parties have agreed 
 beforehand as to the questions to raise, and so have saved 
 unnecessary expense. The adviser of the defendant has, how- 
 ever, almost invariably been consulted when it is too late to file 
 an answer, and it is surely not consistent with good legislation 
 that the system sanctioned by it should owe it to the practitioners 
 who act under it, and not to its own merits, that it is not found 
 either dilatory or expensive. It is conceived that the fusion of 
 Law and Equity effected by the Judicature Act, and the changes 
 introduced by the new Consolidated Kules, will not very 
 materially affect the practice. In those cases in which the 
 remedy sought involves a prayer for what has been hitherto 
 called " equitable " relief only, or involves the exercise of 
 administrative functions only, the particulars of the future will 
 be more concise than the plaint of the past, but unless Con- 
 solidated Order IX., r. 15, is to be construed to require a special 
 defence in aU cases in which the plaint is founded oa an equitable
 
 (To fact p. 13.) 
 
 Note, — ^By the Law List for 1876 it appears that 131 Courts 
 havo now jurisdiction iii Bankiiiptcy, 30 of theee in Admiralty 
 also, and 6 otiiers in Admiralty only. 
 Nc B, — This elip wm printed with tha pr«88 rocommc»ded post. p. 67.
 
 13 
 
 claim (and this cannot have been intended by the framers to be 
 the meaning of the rule), the defendant would be under no 
 greater obligation to answer than heretofore. Most of the 
 so-called Equity cases hitherto brought under the jurisdiction of 
 the County Courts involve the exercise of administrative 
 functions only, and if an answer were obligatory, in nine cases 
 out of ten a common order of reference to take accounts and make 
 enquiries might be drawn up, as of course, without the expense 
 and delay of any hearing before the Judge, unless one should 
 become necessary on the application for a final decree. 
 
 Ill 
 
 ON THE EXISTING CIECUIT AEEANGEMENTS OF 
 THE COUNTY COUKTS. 
 
 Changes in the distribution of the Circuits are continually 
 being made as vacancies occur in the Judgeships, but there were 
 when this paper was begun, exclusive of the City of London 
 Court, 56 Circuits, each, with one exception, worked by a single 
 Judge, who always travels round the same route. The exception 
 is. No. 6, including Liverpool, &c., where there are two 
 Judges. 
 
 The 56 Circuits include 499 Courts, of which 128 have a 
 jurisdiction in Bankruptcy. Twenty-eight out of the 128 have 
 a jurisdiction in Admiralty also, and five others have a juris- 
 diction in Admiralty and not in Bankruptcy. Many of the 
 Courts having a Bankruptcy jurisdiction are only situated at 
 very short distances from one another. Courts with or without 
 Bankruptcy and Admiralty jurisdiction are holden in almost 
 every market town in the kingdom. Eleven of the Courts 
 which have no Bankruptcy jurisdiction are without it, not in 
 consequence of their insignificance, but because they are situate 
 within the jurisdiction of the London Court of Bankruptcy, 
 
 These 56 Circuits have no connection or official communication 
 with each other, and although by 30 and 31 Vict., c. 142, s. 20, 
 the Judges have jurisdiction all over England in aid of each 
 other, and so are able to help one another in emergencies, yet no 
 opportunities are provided them for meeting or consultation ; 
 and except on the occasion of the half-yearly meeting in London 
 of a voluntary society of their body, and the meetings of a 
 small committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor to frame 
 rules, who do not represent and are under no obligation to
 
 14 
 
 consult their brethren, they pass the whole of their judicial lives 
 in entire isolation from one another. Their respective judgments, 
 being those of inferior Courts and not recognised as authorities, 
 are not considered to be in any way binding on the others, 
 diversities of practice in the numerous details which cannot be 
 reached by any body of general rides, spring up, and justice may 
 be, and sometimes is, administered on different principles on the 
 two different sides of a Circuit boundary, or by successive Judges 
 on the same Circuit, at least in those cases in which there is no 
 appeal without leave. 
 
 Again, in addition to the direct waste of money involved 
 in the maintenance of the smaller Courts, the waste of judicial 
 time in travelling, and therefore indirectly of public money, 
 is enormous. Observations have been made in Parliament and 
 elsewhere, on the paucity of the number of days in the year 
 occupied in judicial sittings by Judges of the County Courts, as 
 compared with those of the Superior Courts ; and those who 
 have made these observations will probably think their remarks 
 will derive additional force from the returns which are now laid 
 before Parliament showing the actual number of hours occupied 
 by each day's sitting. But such persons have little idea of the 
 number of hours of which the working day of a County Court 
 Judge of a rural circuit consists, and that the day which on the 
 face of the return appears to have provided employment for 
 half-an-hour only, may really have been one of long and 
 fatiguing work. Many of the smaller Courts are at a distance 
 from railway stations, many are ill-served vnth trains, the 
 journey not unfrequently involving the use of the lines of hostile 
 railway companies, the service of whose trains is so contrived as 
 to render access to and from the places comprised in the same 
 Circuit, and near each other as the crow flies, circuitous and 
 difficult; and as the Judge is prohibited from holding two Courts 
 on the same day, he cannot economise time by grouping the 
 smaller Courts, and posting from one to the other when they are 
 near. 
 
 Thus, it has happened to the author of this paper to have 
 to leave his home at 5.40 a.m., to reach, after five hours' travelling 
 a Court at the door of which the Ptegistrar stood to say that 
 there was no business, and that if no time were lost in changing 
 the horse which had conveyed him eight miles from a station on 
 one railway, for another which would convey him four miles 
 further to a different station on a different line, he might reach 
 home by 5 p.m., congratulating himself, if it be winter, in saving 
 daylight, but having travelled for 11 hours and 20 minutes, and 
 besides railway fares, having posted twelve miles for absolutely 
 uothing.
 
 15 
 
 On the other hand, it does occasionally happen, that some cause, 
 or perhaps two or three at the same Court, of the kind comprised 
 in Class III. come on for trial at one of the smaller Courts. 
 There exists no means of forecasting these events, and the 
 Court days have been necessarily fixed three months beforehand. 
 On such occasions there is undue pressure, and the parties after 
 having gone, it may be, to considerable expense in bringing 
 special professional assistance to an out-of-the-way town, find 
 their cases adjourned after all, or themselves and their witnesses 
 detained until a late hour, their case conducted by tired 
 advocates, before a tired Judge, and thus find that the Local 
 Court which was to bring justice close to their doors is a burden, 
 rather than a benefit, and that they would have been really put to 
 less inconvenience, if they had had to travel a few miles further 
 to the County Town. 
 
 In order to illustrate these remarks so far as they relate 
 to the waste of time in travelling, a table is annexed in 
 Appendix B, showing the number of hours during which the 
 Judge of Circuit No. 22 was necessarily kept from his home or 
 his place of lodging for the night by his judicial duties in the 
 year 1874, and what proportion of the time so spent was occupied 
 in sitting in Court, and what time in travelling. "With regard to 
 this table, it may no doubt fairly be remarked, that the time 
 spent in travelling must depend in some measure on the Judge's 
 selection of his residence. In the case put, the Judge's residence 
 w^as, it is true, selected for other reasons than those of mere 
 convenience of travelling, but at the same time it was not, 
 having regard to the wide extent and straggling character of the 
 Circuit round which he travelled up to the end of 1874, at all 
 unreasonably situated. The table, therefore, is not an unfair one, 
 although probably many Judges would have preferred to spend 
 less time in actual locomotion, and more in sleeping at Inns 
 in the Court Towns than has been done. 
 
 The officers who issue, serve, and put in force, the process of 
 the Court are. The Eegistrar, The High Bailiff, and The Sub- 
 Bailiffs. By recent Legislation the tAvo first ofiices are, as 
 regards the future, combined, an alteration which produces the 
 following results : — 
 
 1. — As the Eegistrar cannot possibly perform the duties 
 of High Bailiff in person, he has always to appoint 
 a subordinate to perform them, and to superintend 
 the Sub-Bailiffs. In consequence, the duties of the 
 High Bailiff, instead of being discharged by a person 
 of intelligence and education appointed by the
 
 16 
 
 Judge, are discliarged by a person of mucli inferior 
 position appointed by the Eegistrar. 
 2. — The Eegistrar being the person to whom all the 
 ignorant suitors apply for information relative to the 
 procedure of the Court, and being also pecuniarily 
 responsible for the acts of his Bailiffs, is, on the 
 occasion of complaints against them, placed in the 
 invidious position of having his interest and his 
 duty in conflict mth each other. That this new 
 system has not been the source of greater mischief 
 to the suitors than it has on those Circuits, on which 
 it is in operation, is attributable to the high probity 
 of the gentlemen filling the ofl&ce of Eegistrar — 
 High BailiU' thereon, rather than to any merit of 
 its own. 
 
 IV. 
 
 SUGGESTIONS FOE THE AMENDMENT OF THE 
 CONSTITUTION AND PEOCEDUEE OF LOCAL 
 COUETS. AND FIEST OF THE METHOD OF 
 DEALING WITH CLASS I. OE UNDISPUTED 
 
 CASES. 
 
 Having thus far considered the more prominent defects of the 
 present system, it is proposed to offer some suggestions, by the 
 adoption of which it is conceived that they might be, to 
 some extent at least, got rid of 
 
 The objects which, it is assumed, should be kept principally 
 in view are — 
 
 I. — To pro^^.de a speedy and inexpensive means of 
 enforcing the payment of debts by execution against 
 the goods, or imprisonment of the persons of debtors 
 who have the means of satisfying their creditors, 
 and to take due care that the facilities thus given to 
 the creditor are not used with undue harshness, or 
 to the oppression of the insolvent debtor. (The 
 punishment of the fraudulent debtor belongs, it is 
 conceived, exclusively to Criminal Justice.) 
 II. — The proAdsion of a tribunal for the speedy settlement 
 of petty disputes between neighbours other than 
 those arising out of debts, which, while it shall 
 afford all due means for the adjustment on
 
 17 
 
 equitable terms of such questions, shall discourage 
 quarrelsome and unnecessary litigation. 
 III. — The provision of a Local Court of First Instance 
 for the settlement of questions in litigation up to a 
 prescribed amount in value of the subject matter, 
 (if a limitation in value be thought advisable), 
 whether the remedy sought be such as has been 
 hitherto obtained in the Common Law, Equity, 
 Admiralty, or Probate Courts. 
 IV. — To make this Court of such a character, that its 
 procedure shall be simple and inexpensive, its 
 decisions uniform throughout the country, and 
 capable of commanding the confidence of the public, 
 and its judgments enforceable speedily, and without 
 oppression. 
 V. — To effect the foregoing objects at as small an expense 
 of public money as possible, consistently with due 
 provision for the work being satisfactorily done. 
 I. — The first suggestion offered with respect to this object is 
 to abolish entirely the smaller Courts now holden in ordinary 
 market towns, and some of the larger Courts which are holden 
 close to each other, as separate Courts, and to establish one 
 Principal Local Court only in the principal town in the prescribed 
 jurisdiction, the Courts whose separate existence is abolished 
 being retained as branch or travelling Courts only, without 
 separate offices or officers and with agreatly limited jurisdiction. 
 To appoint in every place, whether town or village, in which 
 a solicitor of sufficient respectability willing to take the office 
 can be found, one or more commissioners to take admissions of 
 debts and consents to judgments in the Principal Local Court 
 of the jurisdiction. These Commissioners should be the occupiers 
 of offices within the place or jurisdiction for which they are 
 appointed. They should receive no salary, and should not be 
 compelled to give any specific attendance at their offices, but 
 should be subject to removal by the appointing authority, who, 
 it is suggested, should be the Lord Chancellor with the advice 
 of the Principal Local Judges of the Circuit, in case of mis- 
 behaviour, inefficiency, or failure to give sufficient attendance to 
 provide for the wants of the jurisdiction for which they are 
 respectively appointed, and they shoidd be paid by fees as 
 hereinafter mentioned. 
 
 The duties of these persons should be — 
 
 1. — To accept and reduce to writing on application, the 
 See forms admissions of all persons under obligations to satisfy 
 ppen IX . iiqui(ja|;Q(j demands, and willing to appear before
 
 18 
 
 them in person, or by some agent of whose authority 
 the recording Commissioner is duly satisfied on 
 oath, and admit the whole, or any part consisting of 
 specific and ascertained items of any such liquidated 
 demand, and the offer, if any, of the admitting party 
 as to the mode of payment, and this whether the 
 admitting party has become defendant in any action 
 or suit for the recovery of the admitted amount, 
 or not. 
 2. — To accept and reduce to writing the consent of any 
 person having a right of action or suit against 
 another, such consent to be given in person or by 
 some agent of whose authority, or by writing, of the 
 genuineness of which, the recording Commissioner 
 is duly satisfied on oath, to accept payment of any 
 sum agreed on between the parties as compensation 
 for any damages, or of any liquidated demand, by 
 instalments, or in any other agreed manner, or the 
 offer of the party having such right to accept pay- 
 ment in any manner not assented to. 
 8. — To transmit the memorandum of admission, partial 
 admission, or admission and consent to accept pay- 
 ment, as the case may be, to the Principal Local 
 Court of the Jurisdiction within which the debtor 
 resides, to be there entered of record, and thence- 
 forth to be a judgment for the admitted or agreed 
 amount payable as agreed, or if no agreement, then 
 as the Eegistrar or Judge may in pursuance of 
 fvirther provisions hereinafter suggested, direct. 
 4. — To keep in their ofiices a proper stock of printed 
 forms of proceedings in the Principal Local Courts 
 for sale or distribution to applicants. 
 These officers should, as has been before suggested, be paid 
 by fees, and it is considered that a fee of 1 s. in respect of sums 
 of £1 or under, of 2s. in respect of sums exceeding £1 and not 
 exceeding 40s., and 6d. in the £ above that amount, but so that 
 no fee taken by the Commissioner should exceed £1, would 
 probably be enough to induce respectable solicitors to accept the 
 appointments. This jurisdiction to accept admissions should be 
 unlimited as to amount. There can, it is humbly conceived, be 
 no reason why, where there is no question of fact or law to try, 
 the mere ministerial act of recording judgment should not be 
 performed by the inferior Court, whatever the amount ; nor is 
 there any greater difficulty in determining by what instalments 
 a large sum shall be paid, than a small one. If, however, it be
 
 19 
 
 thought that it would "be unwise to entrust the officers of the 
 inferior Court with the duty of levying execution for large 
 amounts, it would be easy to provide for the removal as of 
 course, on the application of the plaintiff, into the Local Eegistry 
 of the Superior Court established under the new Judicature 
 Act of all judgments of the inferior Court on which it might 
 become necessary at any one time to lerj by execution a sum 
 exceeding the prescribed amount. 
 
 The effect of the establishment of these local offices for the 
 acceptance of admissions, would probably, it is submitted, be as 
 follows : — The creditor, pressing for his debt, and met with the 
 usual answer of inability to pay at present, and petition for time, 
 would say, " Come then to Mr. Smith, the Commissioner, and 
 " admit the debt, and save me further trouble ; " a request, 
 which, as it would involve very little trouble or loss of time and 
 a trifling expense, would probably be complied with. The most 
 usual way of proving undefended cases is, for the plaintiff or 
 his witness to swear that he has delivered a bill of the amount 
 sued for, and demanded payment in person of the defendant who 
 admitted the debt and promised to pay. In all these cases, and 
 probably in most in which there is no defence, the machinery 
 thus provided, would, it is believed, be gladly used, the difficulty 
 in the way of obtaining admissions now being that the special 
 attendance of the defendant at the Eegistrar's office or before an 
 attorney cannot be given until after litigation actually com- 
 menced and costs incurred ; and that an admission before hearing 
 involves no greater saving of fees than one delayed until the 
 hearing. 
 
 It should be the duty of the Registrar to hold weekly or more 
 frequent sittings in chambers on the market day for the adjust- 
 ment of the mode of payment of admitted debts and claims, the 
 mode of payment of which shall not have been agreed on before 
 the Local Commissioner ; and he should immediately on receiving 
 any memorandum of admission unaccompanied by the consent 
 of the creditor to accept pajanent in an agreed manner, send 
 notice of such admission to the creditor, accompanied by an 
 intimation, in cases where the debtor has made an offer of a 
 mode of payment, that unless the creditor returns within the 
 prescribed time, notice that he dissents from the offer made, the 
 Registrar will at the next sitting for the adjustment of the mode 
 of payment of admitted debts, to be holden not less than the 
 prescribed time after the transmission to the creditor of the 
 notice of admission, proceed to enter judgment for the payment 
 of the admitted amount by the instalments offered by the 
 debtor. In cases where the admission contains no offer to pay
 
 20 
 
 in any particular manner, the notice should merely contain an 
 intimation that the Eegistrar or Judge will at the prescribed 
 sitting proceed to enter j udgment for payment in such manner, 
 at such time, or Ly such instalments as is adjudged reasonable. 
 
 It should be competent for either party on giving the prescribed 
 notice of his intention to do so, either to appear in person or by 
 any witness acquainted with the necessary facts before the Judge 
 or Eegistrar at such sitting, or without appearing, to transmit by 
 post affidavits of such facts as he may think necessary to bring 
 imder the notice of the Court in order to affect its judgment as 
 to the mode of payment, provided that it should in all cases be 
 competent to the creditor to require by a prescribed notice the 
 j)ersonal attendance of the admitting debtor to be examined as 
 to his means of payment. 
 
 The Judge or Eegistrar should have full power over the costs 
 of the proceedings before him, and it should be his duty to 
 impose them on the party, whether debtor or creditor, by whose 
 default they become necessary. Thus, if a debtor should admit 
 a debt of £5, and make an offer to pay by instalments of 10s. a 
 month, and this offer be refused by the creditor, then if the 
 adjudicating authority should be satisfied that the offer of 10s. 
 a month was, under all the circumstances, reasonable, and that 
 the creditor had no good ground for contesting its reasonableness, 
 he should impose the costs of the hearing on the creditor, deducting 
 the amount from the judgment. And vice versa, when the 
 admission is accompanied by no offer, or by an unreasonable 
 offer as to mode of payment, the costs of hearing should be 
 imposed on the debtor, and added to the judgment. There 
 might, and probably would, arise intermediate cases, in which 
 both parties would be in fault. In these, the costs should be 
 apportioned as might be just under the circumstances. 
 
 It should be competent for either party to move the Principal 
 Local Court to rescind or vary any such order for payment, and 
 it should be competent for that Court upon such application to 
 confirm, vary, or rescind such order and to make such further 
 order as to costs and otherwise as should be just. 
 
 It should also be competent for the parties at any time by 
 consent to be given before any Commissioner, and transmitted 
 and recorded in the same way as an original admission, to vary 
 the amount or mode of payment prescribed by any order of the 
 Court for the payment of money. 
 
 It should also be competent to either party, upon giving the 
 prescribed notice to the other, to apply to the Eegistrar at any 
 weekly sitting, or to the travelling or Principal Local Court to 
 rescind or vary any order for the payment of money on the
 
 21 
 
 ground of an alteration in the circumstances of the debtor 
 supervening since such order was made. These powers should 
 apply to orders for the payment of money made in the course 
 of hostile litigation as well as to cases of admission, and should be 
 exercised in the same way and should be subject to the same 
 right of application to vary, &c., as those of making original 
 orders on admissions. 
 
 The subject of the method of collection, and enforcement of 
 orders for the payment, of money will be treated of separately. 
 
 V. 
 
 SUGGESTIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE CON- 
 STITUTION AND PEOCEDURE OF LOCAL COURTS 
 CONTINUED. SECONDLY, OF THE METHOD OF 
 DEALING WITH CLASSES II. AND III., OR CASES 
 INVOLVING ACTUAL LITIGATION. AND HEREIN, 
 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE NECESSARY 
 COURTS. 
 
 We now come to consider the provisions to be made for 
 dealing with the cases comprised in Classes II. and III. above 
 referred to, and involving actual litigation. And, first, of the 
 Courts to be provided for this purpose. 
 
 It is considered that about 81 jurisdictions would be sufficient 
 to provide for the whole of England and Wales in this respect, 
 exclusively of the City of London. These 81 jurisdictions 
 should be divided into 10 Circuits, each administered by three 
 Principal Local Judges, answering to the present County Court 
 Judges, and thus reducing their number from 57 to 30. It 
 should be the duty of every division of three Judges to provide 
 for the holding of the Principal Local Court once in every 
 calendar month at every Principal Court-town therein, com- 
 mencing the business on Monday, and sitting dc die in diem as 
 long as the business lasts, up to, but exclusive of, the succeeding 
 Saturday. The Judges of each Circuit should be allowed to 
 apportion the work of the Circuit between them according to 
 convenience, with the proviso that, as a rule, two successive 
 Courts for the same jurisdiction should not be holden before the 
 same Judge. Provision should be made for the periodical 
 meeting of the three Judges of each Circuit, for the purpose of
 
 22 
 
 holding a joint sitting for the hearing and decision of points 
 arising in tlie ordinary conrse of business, and considered of too 
 great difficulty or importance for summary disposal. 
 
 It is, of conrse, impossible to provide by statute any rule as to 
 the extent to which the decisions of this tribunal should be treated 
 as authorities. Their value as judicial precedents must neces- 
 sarily be left to the estimation of the profession, but for insuring 
 uniformity in the administration of Local Justice without driving 
 suitors to purchase it at the cost of an expensive appeal to the 
 High Court of Justice, it is suggested that as a matter of practice 
 they should, until overruled or reversed by that Court, be treated 
 with the same respect by Courts of equal and lower degree, as 
 the Superior Courts of Common Law and Equity have hitherto 
 been accustomed to pay to the decisions of each other when 
 sitting in banco. 
 
 The Principal Local Court thus constituted should have, it is 
 submitted, a jurisdiction as to the amount, to recover which the 
 action may be commenced, limited only by the self-acting 
 operation of a poundage scale of fees as pointed out below in 
 Chap. X., but if limited, the jurisdiction should be uniform, 
 whatever the nature of the remedy sought, save only that in 
 actions to try the title to hereditaments, the annual, and not the 
 capital value of the subject matter must of necessity be the 
 criterion. If limited, there is, it is submitted, no reason why 
 the prescribed amount should be less than the present limitation 
 in respect of proceedings under 29 and 80 Vict., c. 99. It 
 is not easy to understand why a Court which in the 
 course of a suit which primarily involves the exercise of 
 its administrative functions only, may have incidentally to 
 decide questions of title to land, money, or chattels of the 
 value of £500, should be limited to one-tenth of that amount in 
 respect of money and chattels Avhen the question is raised 
 directly in an action, or why, while thus limited as to chattels, 
 it should have jurisdiction to determine the title to lands whose 
 fee simple value at the ordinary purchase would be ^£'600. 
 WJiatever the limit, and however devised, it should be competent 
 to the defendant in all cases in which he could satisfy a Judge, 
 either of the Principal Local or a Superior Court, that for any 
 reason whatever, it would be more conducive to the ends of 
 justice that the action should be transferred to the Superior 
 Court, to obtain such transfer without any burdensome restric- 
 tions as to security for costs ; but he should further be entitled 
 as of right to require such transfer in all cases in which he 
 could find satisfactory security for the indemnification of the 
 successful plaintiff against all costs, loss and delay caused by
 
 23 
 
 the transfer. There should be a corresponding power in the 
 Superior Court to remit to the Local Court causes which it would 
 he more conducive to the ends of justice to carr}^ on there. 
 
 Each of the Principal Local Courts thus constituted should 
 have its office presided over by a Eegistrar with a necessary 
 staff of clerks, and in this office should be transacted the whole 
 of the official business above suggested to be performed by the 
 Eegistrars. It should, as a rule, dispose of before its Principal 
 Judge such cases only as would be comprised in Class III., 
 above referred to, and such cases as might be transferred to it 
 from the branch or travelling Courts hereinafter mentioned. 
 
 The c[uestion of how to provide for the disposal of the business 
 comprised in Class II. with a due regard to efficiency and 
 economy is no doubt one of much difficulty. When this paper 
 was first taken in hand it had been intended to suggest that 
 there should be attached to each of the 10 Circuits, except in 
 London, Liverpool, and Manchester, a sufficient number of 
 inferior judicial officers, whose qualification should be some 
 small standing at the bar, who should be appointed, as a rule, 
 from the junior members of the profession, and .should be per- 
 mitted to practice. This suggestion is, however, open to serious 
 objections. Proposals have at times been made to give the 
 Eegistrars of the existing Courts (maintaining the present 
 number) a contentious jurisdiction up to <^5 in value of the 
 subject of litigation. This plan is also open to no less grave 
 objections. The existing Eegistrars are all solicitors in actual 
 practice in the towns in which Courts are holden, and having 
 numerous debtors and clients amongst the suitors. It is 
 impossible that the decisions of men so situated could command 
 confidence, however much they might deserve it, and it would 
 be unfair to the Eegistrars themselves to expose them to the 
 risk of giving offence to influential clients by deciding according 
 to the right. Nor does the cj^uantum of the pecuniary amount 
 in dispute afford any true criterion of the fitness of the cause 
 to be decided by an inferior judicial officer. It is quite true 
 that when the amount in dispute is small, and when nothing 
 beyond the liability is in issue, and the decision will not be a 
 j)recedent, it is generally better to give a cheap and speedy 
 remedy at the risk of mistake, either in law or fact. But it is 
 obvious that a question where 5s. only is in dispute may be of 
 more real pecuniary importance to the parties than one where 
 <i£'20 is at stake. For example, a butcher sues for 5s. for a loin 
 of pork, and is met by the defence that it was measly and 
 poisonous. The successful establishment of such a defence, and 
 its publication in the newspapers, might ruin the plaintiff, while
 
 24 
 
 if the claim were for £20, and the only question at issue whether 
 the defendant's wife was, under the circumstances, impliedly 
 authorised to pledge her husband's credit, an adverse verdict 
 would carry no consequences with it beyond the loss of the 
 amount claimed and costs. 
 
 The objections, above stated, to the exercise of judicial 
 functions by the Eegistrar, would not, however, apply, if that 
 officer were not a practising solicitor, and if the division of 
 business between the Principal Local and the subordinate or 
 branch Courts, (herein referred to as the Travelling Courts,) 
 were made to depend, not on the amount in dispute, but on the 
 nature of the issue to be tried. It is suggested, then, that 
 except in a few very large towns, the functions of Eegistrar of the 
 Principal Local Court and Travelling Judge should be combined 
 in the same person, who should be proliibited from all practice, 
 and from the holding of any other office, except, perhaps, that 
 of Magistrate's Clerk, and who should be appointed indifferently 
 from the bar, pleaders or draftsmen under the bar, if any such 
 exist in future, and solicitors, appointments being made in the 
 first instance from the existing Kegistrars. 
 
 It should be the duty of these officers to hold at the prescribed 
 intervals and places, in lieu of the County Courts proposed to be 
 abolished. Travelling Courts, for the cognizance of such litigious 
 cases only as are comprised in Class II., and of these Travelling- 
 Courts they should be allowed to hold several in the same day. 
 These Travelling Courts should be branches of the Principal 
 Local Court, they should liaA^e no separate office, officers, or 
 establishment, but the Piegistrar, acting as Travelling Judge, 
 should be bound to provide a competent person to act as Clerk 
 of the Travelling Court during its sitting; and he should be 
 entitled to require, if he should think fit, the attendance of 
 a policeman in the same manner as in the Revising Barristers' 
 Courts for the purpose of maintaining order. He should in the 
 Travelling Court exercise a jurisdiction similar to and concurrent 
 with that which he has as Registrar of the Principal Local 
 Court to make, vary, and rescind, orders for the payment by 
 instalments or otherwise of money payable by virtue of any 
 order of the Court. In litigious cases the Travelling Courts 
 should have a concurrent jurisdiction quoad amount with the 
 Principal Local Court in all matters cognizable there as a Court 
 of Common Law, but the Registrar, acting as Travelling Judge, 
 should have power to adjourn into the Principal Local Court 
 any cause likely to occuj)y more than the prescribed time, and 
 to impede the dispatch of business, or raising any question of 
 difficulty or importance, or in which any matter involving the
 
 25 
 
 demand or grant of equitable relief, or any question proper for 
 the decision of a jury arises incidentally. 
 
 The plaintiff should in all cases enter his action in the office of 
 the Principal Local Court of the Jurisdiction, and it should be 
 the duty of the Eegistrar to set the cause doAvn for hearing in 
 the Principal Local or Travelling Court, according to his 
 estimate of its probable importance. It should, however, be 
 competent to either party, on sliowing to the satisfaction of the 
 Eegistrar, or of the Principal Local Judge, any good reason for 
 the transfer, to procure the cause to be transferred to the 
 Principal Local Court or vice versa, upon such terms, and subject 
 to such liability to pay costs as may be ordered. No cause 
 appearing on the face of the proceedings to involve a claim 
 to equitaljle relief by either party, nor in Avhich a jury is granted 
 should be set down for hearing in the Travelling Court, but the 
 Judge of the Principal Local Court should have power to direct 
 any question of fact or account arising incidentally in any 
 proceeding to l)e tried there, and he should have a similar power 
 of adjourning into the Travelling Court all cases in which 
 an adjournment is necessary for the ends of justice, and 
 which in his discretion he might think would be more 
 expeditiously and satisfactorily determined there. The cost of 
 appearing by attorney or counsel in the Travelling Court should 
 not be allowed on taxation between party and j^arty, except in 
 cases remitted from the Principal Local Court ; and then only 
 by special permission of the remitting Judge forming part of the 
 order, it following ex hyiJothesi that a case worthy of professional 
 advocacy, would be worthy of the Principal Local Court. The 
 Judge of that Court should have power to certify for counsel or 
 attorney in all cases in which he might think that the ends of 
 justice required their employment, without regard to the amount 
 at stake. 
 
 in order to show practically how the Circuit arrangements 
 thus proposed may be worked, a scheme has been prepared 
 which will be found in Appendix C, for the division of the 
 whole country into ten Circuits, each containing three Districts, 
 each of wdiich is again sub-divided into 1, 2, or 3 Jurisdictions. 
 
 The calculations on which this scheme is founded, are based on 
 the Parliamentary returns of the year 1872, a year selected 
 quite at random, and because the returns relating to it happened 
 to be ready to hand. It being cpiite impossible to guess what 
 amount of business an increased jurisdiction, and increased 
 importance would bring to the proposed Principal Local Court, 
 it has been assumed that the number of causes entered will 
 remain unaltered. It is assumed also that the Common Law
 
 26 
 
 and mixed causes (exclusive of those in which a remedy 
 involving the exercise of administrative functions is sought, and 
 the Bankruptcy and Admiralty business, and other miscellaneous 
 matters,) to be brought before the proposed Principal Local 
 Court will about equal in number those which were entered 
 in the County Courts in that year to recover sums above £20. 
 They would not, of course, be identical with the latter, but there 
 is reason to believe that they would probably about equal them 
 in number. If the increased jurisdiction should bring with 
 it an access of a largely increased number of cases comprised 
 within Class III., it might no doubt become necessary to expand 
 the proposed system by the re-arrangement or sub-division of 
 Circuits and the appointment of a larger number of Principal 
 Local Judges and Eegistrars. But, as any such increase would 
 bring with it a largely increased receipt of fees, which being 
 in the nature of a percentage, would grow more rapidly than 
 the time occupied by the additional cases, there would be 
 no loss from this circumstance to the Exchequer. 
 
 In regard to the Principal Local Courts, Appendix C will be 
 found to contain a table showing the amount of causes to be 
 expected on the above assumption in every jurisdiction, and 
 (with deductions for Bankruptcy, Administrative, and Admiralty 
 business) the average number of causes per diem which the 
 Judge sitting the prescribed number of days in the year would 
 have to dispose of. The places absorbed and converted into 
 Travelling Courts by each proposed Principal Local Court have 
 been grouped, with the assistance afforded by a railway map, with 
 the object, as far as possible, of securing facility of communication 
 between them, each other, and the Principal Local Court. The 
 consequence is, as might be expected, that the average of the 
 expected work in the different Principal Local Courts will be 
 found to vary much, but these inequalities will be to a great extent 
 corrected by the proposal for providing for the alternation of the 
 Districts between the Judges. At the end of every Cu-cuit 
 summaries will be found, in which the averages of Common Law 
 cases are stated in a tabular form. 
 
 With regard to the Travelling Courts, the time whicli it wiU 
 be necessary to occupy in disposing of the business brought 
 before them has been arrived at in the following way : — The 
 year 1872 has again, and for the same reasons as before, been 
 taken as a specimen year, and it has been assumed that 
 twenty per cent, of the judgments recovered in that year would 
 represent the average number, which in some shape or other 
 would find their way into the Travelling Court for decision, 
 besides the undefended cases. This is believed to be a
 
 27 
 
 proportion much in excess of what would really so find its way, 
 but it has been thought safest to err on the side which tells 
 against the proposed scheme. It is calculated also, that of the 
 cases which do so find their way (being, it is to be remembered, 
 those comprised in Class II. only, everything of importance or 
 likely to take time having been eliminated), the Eegistrar acting 
 as Travelling Judge, unfettered in his arrangements, and able to 
 proceed from one Court to another on the same day, could, 
 besides travelling, and dealing with undefended cases, dispose 
 of twenty per diem. In order that the reader may have 
 an opportunity of judging for himself of the feasibility of this 
 arrangement, and of observing the saving of time now wasted, 
 wliich will be effected thereby, the tables contained in the 
 Appendix C show — 
 
 In Cohimn 1 — the number of judgments obtained in 
 
 the County Court for the place in the year 1872. 
 In Column 2 — the number of days on which the Court 
 
 sat in that year. 
 In Column 3 — the estimated number of disputed cases 
 Y>'hicli the Court had to dispose of in that year, 
 calculated at 20 per cent, of the judgments. 
 In Colunm 4 — the average number of disputed cases 
 
 disposed of per diem on this calculation. 
 In Column 5 — the estimated number of undefended cases 
 disposed of in Court in the course of the year 1872, 
 exclusive of those withdrawn, admitted, or settled, 
 out of Court. Tliis estimate has been arrived at by 
 taking the number of judgments for the plaintiff in 
 the year, exclusive of those by admission or given 
 by default on default summonses, adding thereto the 
 nonsuits and verdicts for the defendant, and 
 deducting from the total thus obtained the estimated 
 number of disputed cases calculated as above. 
 In Column 6 — the average number of undefended cases 
 
 disposed of per diem on this calculation. 
 In Column 7 — The estimated gross total average of 
 defended and undefended cases disposed of per diem. 
 For the purpose of striking the average, and arriving at totals 
 satisfactorily, the figures are in general worked out to two 
 places of decimals, the second decimal being frequently approxi- 
 mate only. Pardon must no doubt be craved for some 
 arithmetical errors committed in the course of working out so 
 large a number of sums, although it is hoped that none exist of 
 sufl&cient magnitude to affect the substantial accuracy of the 
 tables.
 
 28 
 
 A glance at these tables will show, more forcibly than any 
 argument, what the waste of time involved in allotting a separate 
 day to each Court must be, when it is noticed that the average 
 number of disputed cases disposed of per diem varies in these 
 calculations from 0-36 at Belford, in Northumberland, to 48'76 at 
 Burton-on-Trent, and that the intermediate averages include 
 almost every figure between these two extremes. That there is, 
 in fact, this waste of time will, it is believed, be confirmed by 
 the returns of the time actually occupied in the sittings of the 
 Judge. These however, have, in the case of Circuit 22, been 
 compiled with so little regard to accuracy, or with such want of 
 uniformity in judging of what time the return was to include, 
 that they are not referred to as authorities. 
 
 The fact that the average of twenty disputed cases per diem, 
 is, according to the calculations on which Appendix C is 
 founded, exceeded in no less than 47 places, and that this average 
 includes in those places dispu.ted cases of every description 
 comprised in both Classes II. and III., justifies the assumption 
 that the Registrar, acting as Travelling Judge, will be able 
 to dispose of twenty per diem, besides travelling and dealing 
 with undefended cases, but excluding the cases comprised in 
 Class III. 
 
 The tables in Appendix C show also the average number of 
 days' work in the year required of every Registrar acting as 
 Travelling Judge in addition to his ordinary duties, and 
 the additional salary which it is suggested that he should receive 
 in respect of his additional work. 
 
 Assuming the Principal Local Judges to receive the same 
 salaries as those now paid to the Judges of the County Courts, 
 the proposed plan would represent a saving of £4'0,500 a year 
 in Judges' salaries, against which, however, would have to be set 
 the additional salary to the Registrar as Travelling Judge. It is 
 believed, however, that it would be found worth while, in order 
 to secure the services of competent men, to pay the Principal 
 Local Judges £2,000 per annum. If this were done, the annual 
 saving on the head of Judges' salaries would be .£'25,500 per 
 annum only. There would also in either case be a saving of 
 the whole of the expense of the Registrars, offices, and establish- 
 ment of the absorbed Courts, leaving only the rent of Court- 
 rooms to be provided. 
 
 A few words may not be out of place here on the rank which 
 it is suggested tliat the proposed new Judges should occupy. 
 At present, a Judge of County Courts has no official or pro- 
 fessional precedence whatever, except in those cases in which he 
 happens to be a Queen's Counsel or Serjeant. Courtesy indeed
 
 29 
 
 has led those who practise before him to address him as " Your 
 Honour," but his right even to this method of address is not 
 recognized by any Statute, while the case of Reg. v. Lefroy L.K., 
 8. Q.B. 134, decides in effect that he has been deprived by 
 Statute of the ordinary powers of punishing contempts incident 
 to all, even inferior Courts of record, and is limited to a power 
 which is useless in those serious cases in which, and in which 
 alone a judicious Judge would interfere at all, while its insigni- 
 ficance tends to tempt a hasty Judge to make use of it in cases, 
 of which, if of higher dignity and a greater sense of responsi- 
 bility, he would take no notice. 
 
 A County Court Judge is moreover, although not absolutely 
 disqualified, practically debarred from all chance of judicial 
 promotion at home, and the only hope of advancement he has, 
 is, that Parliament, which is perpetually burdening him with new 
 duties, may be induced to see the justice of paying him a 
 pecuniary remuneration for their performance. And although 
 it would be practically impossible, so long as the present system 
 exists, to hold out to the Judges of County Courts hopes of 
 judicial promotion, because their position does not give them a 
 sufficiently public arena for the display of judicial merit, their 
 present status, and the fact that they are shelved, is not without 
 evil, in that it prevents men of ambition from applying for the 
 office, and presents to those who are appointed a strong temp- 
 tation to neglect the duties which they have to perform, so that 
 however wisely selected, they have an inducement to degenerate 
 instead of improving. While individual excellence can meet 
 with no reward, the higher the"public estimation in which the 
 Judges are held as a body, the heavier the burdens which they 
 may expect to find proposed to be laid on them in every Session 
 of Parliament. 
 
 How then are the services of able and zealous public servants 
 to be obtained ? An adequate salary is, no doubt, an important 
 consideration, because a man who is of sufficient ability to earn 
 a large income at the Bar, will be lotli, unless he have a large 
 private fortune, or have no family, to give up his professional 
 income, even for a position of ease and dignity, much less for a 
 place without either. But there are many other inducements 
 than a mere increase of salary to be held out. The first is the 
 relief of the office from labour which the holder feels is wasted. 
 — This, it is submitted, would bo effected by the division of 
 Courts into Principal Local and Travelling. The next is the 
 assignment of a due social and judicial rank to those who have 
 the bumen of heavy social and judicial responsibilities. The 
 last is to encourage zeal, and the candidature of men who have
 
 30 
 
 not thrown aside all ambition, by keeping up, as far as is con- 
 sistent with public policy and the respect due to public opinion, 
 the hope that a diligent and able discharge of duty may meet 
 with some public recognition and reward. 
 
 To apply this j)ractically. — Without touching the question of 
 salary or the precise rank to be taken by the Principal Local 
 Judges, it is suggested they should have such precedence as 
 would ensure their ranking before all practising members of 
 the profession appearing before them, and that selections should 
 occasionally be made from them to fill vacancies in such higher 
 Judicial and other offices as the use which they have made of 
 the opportunities afforded them for a public manifestation of 
 their fitness should justify, being reckoned as to standing on an 
 equality with other members of the profession, who would, 
 independently of judicial rank, be equal to them in that respect. 
 These suggestions, it will be observed, do not advocate the 
 adoption of the French system, by which the profession of a 
 Judge is rendered distinct from that of Counsel, but there 
 cannot be any good reason why judicial experience in an inferior 
 Court should be a disqualification for the due discharge of 
 Judicial duties in a Superior Court, by a man otherwise fit. 
 It is to be borne in mind that even hitherto the appointments 
 of County Court Judges have been made from men of consider- 
 able standing in point of years. There is not at present a single 
 Judge whose standing at the time of his appointment did not 
 exceed ten years, the limit fixed by the Judicature Act for the 
 qualification of a Judge of the new High Court of Justice ; and 
 it is probable that future appointments to the Principal Local 
 Judgeships, if the above suggestions were adopted, would 
 invariably be of men of a still higher standing than this. There 
 would, therefore, be no reason to fear the lack of experience as 
 counsel, amongst those from time to time selected for promotion, 
 while, if the Principal Local Court became a tribunal of the 
 importance to v/hich it is hoped it would grow if the scheme 
 advocated in this paper were adopted, the Judge of that Court 
 would be relieved from the disadvantage under which the Judge 
 of a County Court now labours, of having no sufficiently public 
 arena whereon to display his judicial merits. 
 
 With respect to the Eegistrars who would become Registrars 
 and Travelling Judges of Principal Local Courts, it would be 
 necessary, no doubt, to effect an entire revolution in their selection 
 and payment. The class from which they should be selected 
 has been indicated above, but as they would have to give up 
 their profession, it would be necessary to provide for them such 
 a liberal scale of remuneration as would tempt men of respec-
 
 31 
 
 tability and intelligence to become candidates for the office. It is 
 not suggested that the payment of all these officers should be 
 uniform — it would be unjust that it should be, for their work 
 would vary much. But they should be paid either entirely by 
 salary or entirely by fees. Both methods of payment have their 
 advantages and disadvantages, but the course of recent legisla- 
 tion has been of late years so uniformly in the direction of 
 adopting the former mode of payment, that it is assumed that 
 the j)ractice would be extended rather tlian curtailed in any 
 future arrangement. 
 
 It is proposed, then, that the Eegistrar should account for all 
 fees paid him, and that his ordinary fixed salary for his ministerial 
 duties, exclusive of remuneration in lieu of the fees for business 
 hitherto "i3aid by fees, should be £700 per annum, the sum now 
 fixed by Statute as the maximum salary of a Eegistrar, exclusive 
 of the fees which he is entitled to receive for his own use. In 
 respect of the business, for which he has been hitherto entitled 
 to receive fees for his own use, he should receive a salary based on 
 an estimate of the average annual amount of actual fees paid 
 him since the establishment of the respective jurisdictions under 
 which they are payable ; and this salary should be re-adjusted, 
 say at intervals of every three years, on an estimate of the 
 average fees which would have been payable during the pre- 
 ceding seven if the old system had continued. For his duties 
 as Travelling Judge, he should be paid a salary estimated with 
 regard to the number of plaints which may be expected to 
 come before him. The time of a person in the position of the 
 proposed Registrar ought, it is suggested, to be treated as of the 
 value of £5 for every entire working day actually fully occupied. 
 The amounts of the salaries required at this valuation of time, 
 and on the assumption that 20 cases, and such travelling as would 
 be required, represent a full day's work will be found worked 
 out in the summaries at the end of the calculations for each district 
 in Appendix C. The total charges for each Circuit in this head 
 will be found shortly stated in Appendix D, These, it will be 
 seen, on reference to that Appendix, amount to a total charge of 
 £25,634^ 17s. over the whole country. The present charge for 
 Judges' salaries alone, without reckoning those instances in 
 which <£>1,800 per annum is paid, is .£^85,500. If, therefore, the 
 salaries of the proposed Principal Local Judges were fixed at 
 £2,000, the whole of the judicial work now costing £85,500 
 would be provided for by a sum of £85,684 17s., whilst the 
 whole of the cost of the Registrars of the abolished Courts 
 would be saved so soon as their compensation had been 
 paid off.
 
 32 
 
 In some of tlie veiy large towns the additional salary- 
 receivable by the Kegistrar, and the number of days occupied 
 in judicial sittings in the year, would be both so large, that it 
 would probably be found advisable either to di\dde the salary and 
 labour between two officers of equal rank, or to appoint a superior 
 and inferior, the former of whom should attend to judicial, and 
 the latter to ministerial matters. The latter course would, it is 
 suggested, be preferable where one of two large Courts in the 
 immediate vicinity of each other is converted into a Travelling 
 Court. As to this see Chapter IX., post. 
 
 The office of High Bailiff, as well in its independent existence 
 as in combination with the office of Eegistrar, should be 
 altogether abolished ; and in lieu of that officer there should be 
 provided a single officer i^ each of the proposed Principal Local 
 Courts, who should be obliged to give a bond to the Treasurer for 
 the due performance of his duties, not only in duly accounting by 
 himself and his sub-bailiffs to the Treasury for all money 
 received by them in the course of their duties, for which they 
 are accountable to the Treasury, but also for the due performance 
 of his duties to the suitors. It should be the duty of this 
 officer to provide and be responsible for the due service and 
 execution of all the process of the Court, and to provide in the 
 jurisdiction for which he is appointed, a sufficient number 
 of sub-bailiffs resident at convenient places, for the purpose 
 of such service and execution. He should also be bound to 
 provide the necessary officers to keep order in the Principal 
 Local Court, and to attend upon the Judge at its sitting. 
 It is believed that economy would best be consulted by allowing 
 this officer to select and pay his own subordinates, power being 
 given to the Principal Local Judge with the consent of the Lord 
 Chancellor, in the event of any miscarriage arising from neglect 
 to provide sufficiently in this respect, to dismiss the officer in 
 default from his office, -^ to call on the Treasurer to put 
 the bond in suit for the benefit of the person aggrieved. 
 
 The allowance at present made to the Registrars acting 
 as High Bailiffs, and the existing salaries paid to High Bailiffs, 
 appointed temporarily on the refusal of the Registrar to act, 
 together with the salaries at present allowed to Sub-bailiffs 
 would, it is conceived, be sufficient to provide for the salaries 
 of the proposed new officers, reduced as they would be in 
 number, on a sufficiently liberal scale to enable them to provide 
 the requisite subordinates, and to induce men of respectability 
 and able to give the required security to accept the post. 
 
 With respect to the office of Treasurer, no suggestion is 
 made, except that it should exist only in relation to the Principal
 
 33 
 
 Local Courts, and if executed by a central authority, that 
 authority should, whilst maintaining a stringent economy in 
 substantial matters, avoid that niggardliness in petty details, 
 which creates a feeling of irritation and discontent among those 
 subjected to its operation, out of all proportion to the saving 
 effected to the public. 
 
 Officers of the Court of every grade, fraudulently misappro- 
 priating money coming to their hands by virtue of their office, 
 should be guilty of felony, and, in addition to the other 
 consequences mentioned above, should be liable to be punished 
 as for embezzlement, notwithstanding Beg. v. Glover, 33 L. J. 
 M.C. 169. 
 
 The advantages of the scheme above proposed over the 
 existing system would be as follows : — 
 A large annual pecuniary saving. 
 
 The saving of much time at present wasted in travelling, and 
 in the hearing by highly-paid Judges of trifling matters 
 unworthy of their cognizance. 
 
 An increase in the authority and dignity of the Courts, 
 by giving the Judges opportunities of conferring together, and 
 thus giving the public the benefit of their combined learning and 
 experience. 
 
 Greater uniformity of practice in the Courts, by diminishing 
 the opportunities for varying it in small details. 
 
 The relief of the Kegistrars from the holding of two offices 
 whose interests conflict. 
 
 The provision of a Small Debts Court in every place in which 
 one is reasonably required, without the necessity of keeping up 
 a separate establishment. 
 
 The effecting of these objects without prejudicing the 
 maintenance of the great central Bar, as would be done by 
 localising the Superior Courts. And in this, the scheme 
 proposed, would have this advantage that it would provide 
 a school of practice for the junior Bar, similar to that which 
 used to be provided by the appeal business at Quarter Sessions. 
 At present the County Courts are too numerous, and the business 
 at the individual Courts too uncertain to make it worth the while 
 bf the Bar to attend unless specially retained, except in those 
 Courts which are in the neighbourhood of London, or of 
 the great towns in which a local Bar is already established. 
 
 Under the proposed system, especially if the Bar would agree 
 on rules for regulating the attendance, the Principal Local 
 Courts would, it is hoped, be regularly attended by the Sessions 
 Bar of the County.
 
 34 
 
 VI. 
 
 SUGGESTIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE CON- 
 STITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF LOCAL COURTS 
 CONTINUED.— ON THE PROCEDURE UP TO AND 
 INCLUDING TRIAL IN DISPUTED CASES. 
 
 The proposed course of proceeding in undisputed cases has been 
 already considered, and the defects incident to the present method 
 in litigious proceedings pointed out. Since this paper was begun 
 the new Consolidated Orders have been completed, and are now 
 in operation. Remarks on their general effect will be found 
 in the introductory observations. They do not, in respect of the 
 matters with which this paper deals, alter materially the pre- 
 viously existing practice. When the alteration, suggested in this 
 paper, has already been in part provided for by an existing rule, 
 reference has been made to that rule in a note, and the same 
 course has been pursued when any special comment has been 
 rendered necessary. All pre-existing rules have been repealed 
 by the new Consolidated Orders, so that no reference to them is 
 considered necessary. The following suggestions are made for 
 the amendment of the procedure, as governed by the new rules. 
 
 Creditors should he compelled, as far as possible, to give their 
 debtors the opportunity of making use of the machinery 
 provided for the admission of debts, and in those cases in which 
 it appears that plaintiffs have resorted to litigation oppressively 
 or unnecessarily they should be deprived of their costs. 
 
 When, however, litigation has become necessary, the facilities 
 now given to plaintiffs to issue their process without the necessity 
 of personal attendance at the Registrar's office, should be 
 
 extended. See Consolidated Order xxxvii., Rule 6. 
 
 For this purpose printed forms of application to the Registrar, 
 similar to those now in use in many Courts, should he provided 
 and distributed gratuitously at the office of every Commissioner 
 for taking admissions, and at the various post of&ces. The 
 application should contain — 
 
 1. — A statement of the name, address, occupation, age, 
 (for the purpose of shewing whether he is a minor 
 or not), and sex of the plaintiff, and the name 
 and address of his agent or solicitor, if any, also 
 similar particulars as to the defendant, so far as 
 known. If either party be a female, it should show 
 whether she is married or not, and if married, 
 the name, address, and occupation of her husband, 
 so far as known.
 
 '3,0 
 
 2, — ^A short statement q/ the subject matter of the 
 jDlaiutiff' s daim, and the nature and amount of 
 the relief or damages claimed, in the party's 
 own language, or, if a solicitor be employed, in the 
 forms pro\'ided by the Judicature Act and rules 
 thereunder, and by the Schedule to the Consolidated 
 Orders, 1875, for indorsement on \yrits and to accom- 
 pany summonses, save only that in all cases where 
 the claim is for a debt consisting of various items, a 
 bill of particulars setting forth all the items should 
 be annexed to the application. 
 
 If the plaintiff be a minor, and the cause of action one for 
 which a minor cannot now sue in his own name, the application 
 should contain the name and address of some person willing to 
 act as the next friend of, and be responsible for costs payable 
 by, the plaintiff. If the defendant l)e a minor, it should contain 
 the name and address (if known) of the parent, guardian, 
 or nearest relation of the defendant, and if no such be known, 
 then a statement that the plaintiff is ignorant thereof. 
 
 If the plaintiff sues as assignee of a chose in action made 
 assignable by the Judicature Act, it should contain the name and 
 address of the first and all mesne assignors, instead of the 
 immediate assignor only as now required. See Consolidated Order 
 
 vii., Rule 3. 
 
 The application thus made should be signed by the plaintiff, 
 his solicitor or agent, and transmitted by post to, or delivered at 
 the Registrar's office. Applications not disclosing the plaintiffs 
 address or disclosing a frivolous claim for which it is clear that 
 there is no right to a remedy either in law or equity should 
 be treated as nullities, (subject however in the latter case to an 
 appeal to the Principal Local Judge) — those which contain 
 an unintelligible statement of a cause of action, or are 
 defective in other particulars, should be returned to the applicant 
 for amendment with an explanation of the nature of the 
 defect. 
 
 When the application is received in proper shape the Eegistrar 
 should issue a monition warning the defendant that an action 
 has been entered against him in respect of a claim for (following 
 as nearly as may be in the particulars the form prescribed by the 
 Judicature Act for the indorsement of a writ of summons, 
 except that the full particulars of a claim of debt should always 
 be annexed) and requiring him forthwith either to state orally 
 to the bailiff serving the monition, in answer to questions to be 
 put to him, the defence which he intends to set up, or within the 
 prescribed time to cause such statement of defence and a
 
 statement of some address where service of all future proceed- 
 ings may be effected on him through the post, to he sent to the 
 Eegistrar by post. 
 
 When the defendant elects to give oral notice of his intention 
 to defend forthwith, the serving officer should put to him a series 
 of formal questions varying according to the nature of the 
 remedy sought ; a printed form of which should be part of or 
 annexed to the monition. The serving officer should take doAvn 
 the answers in writing, and forward them to the Eegistrar. 
 Proposed forms will be found in Appendix E. 
 
 If the defendant refuses to answer the questions, or elects 
 to defend by a solicitor, or if actual personal service is not 
 effected, a copy of the monition containing, or with the questions 
 annexed to it, should be left with the person served. 
 
 These monitions should, as a rule, be personally served. 
 Service of an ordinary summons is now allowed to be 
 effected, in general, by leaving it with any person at the 
 residence or place of business of the defendant, if such 
 person be apparently of the age of 16 years; and the Court 
 is to proceed to hear the cause, if satisfied that the summons 
 has come to the knowledge of the defendant, but as it has been 
 the practice to assume this, if the person served promised to 
 give it to him, it is but small practical protection to a defendant.* 
 Personal service of some process is, however, now practically 
 necessary, before any money can be recovered by the process 
 of the Court, except when the defendant has property which can 
 be seized in execution. In the latter case, personal service 
 at the outset would rarely present any difficulty, as a person 
 who has tangible property can almost always himself be found ; 
 in the former no real inconvenience would result from the service 
 of the process personally at the commencement of the proceed- 
 ings, instead of after judgment. Under the present course of 
 procedure, which allows the service of the summons in the 
 manner above-mentioned, and allows the defendant to be 
 represented by his wife or agent at the hearing, it not 
 unfrequently happens that the defendant, appearing on a sum- 
 mons after judgment, alleges, and sometimes, it is to be feared, 
 with truth, that the service of the judgment summons on him is 
 the first notice he has ever had even of the existence of the 
 alleged claim, much less of his having been made defendant 
 in an action. No doubt these allegations are frequently made 
 untruly by fraudulent defendants, but it seems deshable that all 
 pretence of a ground for making them should be swept away, 
 which would be the case, if all process for compelling appearance 
 
 • See Consolidated Order viii., r. 22.
 
 37 
 
 ■were personally served, except in the following cases, viz., when 
 the defendant is — 
 
 1. — A prisoner in custody. 
 See 2. — A patient in an hospital or infirmary, 
 dated ' ^- — "^ lunatic confined in a public or private asylum. 
 Order 4. — An infant under the age of 16. 
 
 VIII., 5. — A person employed in a mine, gunpowder manu- 
 factory, ship, (except ships alongside quays), or any 
 other place which it would be hazardous or unlawful 
 to enter. 
 0. — A person being at the time of attempted service, in 
 any place, the person in charge of the entrance to 
 which refuses to admit the serving of&cer, on being 
 made acquainted with the nature of his errand. 
 7. — A defendant fraudulently endeavouring to evade ser- 
 vice, or who, after reasonable inquiry by the serving 
 officer cannot be found. 
 8. — Cases in which any defendant or his solicitor has 
 given notice to the Registrar that he will be satisfied 
 with service in any other named manner. 
 In all these cases, except Nos. 4, 7, and 8, service should be 
 sufficient, if effected on the person apparently having the control 
 of the ingress to the place in question, and it should be the 
 duty of such person in cases 5 and 6 under a penalty, at the 
 first convenient opportunity, and not in any case later than twelve 
 hours after receiving it, to deliver the process thus served on 
 him, personally into the hands of the defendant. In cases 1, 2, 
 and 8, of prisoners, patients in hospitals, &c., and lunatics, it 
 should be the duty of the person served with the process forth- 
 with to deliver it to the person for the time being in charge of 
 the establishment, who should, if the defendant were then in a 
 condition to understand the nature of the process, and not so 
 ill as to be injured by its communication to him, forthwith 
 deliver it to him. If the defendant were in such a state of 
 mind or body as to be unfit to be served with the process, it 
 should be the duty of the person in charge of the establishment 
 to return such process to the Registrar, with his certificate of the 
 fact. In case No. 4, service should be effected on the infant 
 defendant personally, and also on his parent or guardian, or if 
 not living with any parent or guardian, on the occupier of the 
 house in which he is resident, whose duty it should be forthwith 
 to forward the process by post to the parent, guardian, or nearest 
 known relation sui juris of the infant defendant, and if no such 
 be known, then to return the same to the Registrar, with his 
 certificate of the fact. In case No. 7, service in any manner
 
 38 
 
 ordered by the Principal Local Judge, and in case No. 8, service 
 in the manner named should respectively be sufficient. 
 
 Corporations aggregate and partners should be served as at 
 present. 
 
 When the Eegistrar receives a proper notice of defence, 
 either from the serving officer, or from the defendant or his 
 solicitor, he should, if the allegations made by the defendant set 
 up a cross claim, or any new matter by way of plea or answer 
 requiring a statement in the nature of a replication from the 
 plaintiff to enable him to settle the record for trial, forthwith 
 forward a copy of the answers requiring reply to the plaintiff 
 with a notice to him to reply thereto. If the plaintiff should 
 not, within the prescribed time, return a statement in reply, or 
 if the defendant's answers be of such a character, as not, in the 
 opinion of the Registrar to call for any .special reply, or if a 
 reply be returned, he should proceed forthwith to settle the 
 issues, and prepare the record for trial, with liberty to apply to 
 the Principal Local Judge to settle them in cases of difficulty, 
 treating any special defence not replied to as traversed. So soon 
 as the issues are settled, and the record for trial prepared, he 
 should transmit one copy to each of the parties, and retain two 
 for the use of himself and the Judge who will have to try the 
 cause. This record for trial should show clearly on whom the 
 burden of proof of every issue raised lies. 
 
 Either party should be at liberty to demand a jury in any 
 cause, upon making the prescribed deposit, but it should be in 
 the discretion of the Eegistrar, subject to an appeal to the 
 Principal Local Judge, to refuse a jury in any case in which the 
 question raised is one of law merely, or of account, or too 
 trifling to be worth the expense. In the last case, however, 
 the party demanding the jury should be entitled to it as of 
 right, upon paying into Court to abide its further order, a sum 
 in the opinion of the Eegistrar sufficient to compensate the jury 
 for their attendance, and the other side for any expense and 
 delay consequent on their being summoned. Similar provisions, 
 mutatis mutandis, should apply to the appointment of Assessors, 
 and the Principal Local Judge should have power to order either 
 jury or Assessors mero motu. 
 
 When the defendant refuses to answer the questions put to 
 him by the serving officer, and sends no statement of his defence 
 to the Eegistrar, he should be precluded from any further 
 appearance in defence of the action except by leave of the 
 Court, which should be grantable at any time, whether before or 
 after judgment, on affidavit of merits, and on such terms as to 
 costs and otherwise as may be just. In case of such refusal and
 
 39 
 
 default, judgment should be entered against the defendant, final 
 if the claim be for a liquidated demand, interlocutory if for 
 unliquidated damages or relief requiring evidence to show what 
 would be just. In the latter cases the Eegistrar should require 
 an oral statement or afhdavit from the plaintiff detailing the 
 circumstances under which the claim to damage or relief accrued, 
 and the manner in which the claim is made out. On hearing 
 the statement, or perusal of the affidavit, the Eegistrar should 
 enter final judgment for such sum, to be paid at such time, as 
 he thinks reasonable, or if he is unable to arrive at a satisfactory 
 conclusion, or if any special relief beyond the payment of a 
 sum of money is necessary to do justice, he should refer the 
 matter to the Principal Local Judge. 
 
 If the defendant is certified to be a lunatic in an asylum, or 
 under the care of a private person, whether committee or not, 
 or to be a patient in an hospital, &c., too ill to be served, or is 
 an infant under the age of sixteen, the Eegistrar should not 
 allow the action to proceed unless he is satisfied that the 
 interests of the defendant are in the hands of some person who 
 will take due care of them. If he is not so satisfied, he should 
 stay the proceedings, and report the facts to the Judge at the 
 next sitting of the Principal Local Court, which should thereupon 
 have power to continue the stay of proceedings, or direct the 
 conduct of the defence by a guardian ad litem, or make such 
 other order as to justice might appertain. Infant defendants 
 above the age of sixteen should have the right to a]3pear in 
 person or by guardian at their option. 
 
 No alteration is suggested in the practice as to the appearance 
 of infant plaintiffs. 
 
 Nor is any suggested in respect of the procedure at present in 
 use under the Bills of Exchange Act, although for neatness' 
 sake, if the other suggested forms of proceedings were adopted, 
 some slight change in the wording of the forms now in use 
 might be advisable. 
 
 The record for trial being complete, the Eegistrar should 
 proceed to set down the cause for hearing in the Travelling or 
 Principal Local Court, as the case may require. The principles 
 which should guide him in this have been pointed out ante 
 pp 23—26. 
 
 The machinery thus suggested will sound at first ponderous 
 and complicated. It will no doubt be objected also, that 
 miscarriages will arise from the ignorance, stupidity, negligence, 
 or fraud, of the serving officers, who will either require to be 
 persons of a higher class than the present sub-bailiff's, or will 
 misunderstand their duties, or return incorrect answers, or fill up
 
 40 
 
 their forms with anything, or with untrue answers, to save 
 themselves trouble, or act in collusion with fraudulent plaintiffs. 
 In reply, it is urged that if all such fraudulent conduct on 
 the part of serving officers were made felony, and negligence 
 summarily punishable by the Principal Local Judge, fraud and 
 negligence would be but rare : — that if it should become 
 necessary, even at a somewhat higher cost, to appoint persons of 
 decent character and education to be sub-bailiffs, the change 
 would })Q liighly beneficial and well Avorth the cost. Finally, it 
 is submitted that there is no reason why the sub-bailiffs should 
 be inferior to, or less trustworthy than policemen, upon whose 
 evidence of statements and confessions made to them by 
 prisoners on or after apprehension, unsupported by any written 
 memoranda, those prisoners are every day convicted in our 
 Criminal Courts of serious crimes, and that if the statement 
 of a person in answer to a criminal charge is to have the effect 
 of practically barring him from setting up any defence incon- 
 sistent with it, d fortiori, there can be no objection to a 
 defendant in a civil action being bound by the statement he 
 makes in answer to the civil process at the outset, nor is there 
 anything inquisitorial in his being required to make ^dthout 
 oath an answer which he may be compelled to make on 
 oath by interrogatories. With respect to complication, a little 
 consideration, and the perusal of the specimen forms in Appendix 
 E, will show that the proceedings will really be in simple cases 
 as simple as at present, and that any complication will arise out 
 of the nature of the questions in dispute (difficulties which no 
 system of procedure can avoid) and not out of the process 
 applicable to their solution, while the effect, in all cases, whether 
 complicated or not, will be to explain clearly to the parties what 
 they must come prepared to prove, and thus save much trouble. 
 Thus, take for example the case of an ordinary action for a 
 tradesman's debt, in which the defence is, payment as to part, 
 and set off as to the residue. Under the present system the 
 plaintiff has notice of the defence of set off, but none 
 of payment, and is either led to suppose that no defence but set 
 off is to be set up, or else must come prepared to prove the 
 delivery of every item in his bill. The proceedings consist of, 
 summons with endorsements, a plaint note, and a notice of 
 defence of set off, Avith particulars. These, (omitting the written 
 particulars, annexed to the summons and the information as to 
 hours of attendance at the Eegistrar's office, &c.,) contain about 
 900 words. Under the system suggested the proceedings would 
 be as foUows, omitting the information as to attendance, &c.
 
 41 
 
 (Monition served on the defendant personally.) 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick. E. 5. 
 
 ( John Jones, of Little Eatington, Grocer, plaintiff, 
 
 Between j j^i^f.^ham Smith, of Little Eatington, Farmer, 
 
 ' defendant. 
 To the defendant. 
 
 You are hereby warned that an action has been entered 
 against you in this Court by the plaintiff, in respect of a claim, 
 the particulars whereof are hereto annexed. 
 
 And take notice that if you intend to defend the action you 
 must answer the questions below, either now by word of mouth 
 or by causing to be sent by post, prepaid, on or before 
 day next your answers in writing thereto addressed to " The 
 Eegistrar, County Court Office, Warwick. 
 
 Dated this day of A.D. 18 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Eegistrar. 
 
 (Particulars annexed.) 
 Mr. A. Smith, Eatington, 
 
 To John Jones, Eatington. Dr. 
 
 1873. 
 
 To lib. tea, at 2/ 
 
 ,, 6lbs. sugar, at /4. 
 
 ,, 1 barrel soda 
 
 ,, two sides of bacon . . 
 , , 1 package blue vitriol 
 
 E. 5. 
 
 No. 
 
 Date. 
 
 1 
 
 Jan. 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 
 Jan'.' 22 
 
 5 
 
 Aug. 21 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 £3 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 Questions to be answered by the 
 Defendant. 
 
 1. Do you admit or deny that the 
 goods, the price of which is sued for, 
 were sold and delivered to you by the 
 plaintiff? 
 
 2. Have you paid for them, and 
 when and to whom ? 
 
 3. Do you say that the debt is more 
 than six years old ? 
 
 4. Do you say that you were under 
 21 years old when the debt was con- 
 tracted, and if so, when and where 
 ■were you born ? 
 
 Defendant's answers. 
 
 1. Yes, I had them. 
 
 2. Yes. I paid for items Nos. 1, 2, 
 and 3 on some day about the end of 
 January last to plaintiff's traveller, a 
 man with a black moustache, I forget 
 his name. 
 
 3. No. 
 
 4. No. I am 50.
 
 42 
 
 Questions to he answered by the 
 Defendant. 
 
 5. Do you say that you were a 
 married woman when the debt was 
 contracted, or that you are now a 
 married woman ? If so, state your 
 husband's name and address. 
 
 6. Do you say that you have been 
 discharged from the debt by any and 
 what Court of Bankruptcy or Insol- 
 vency, and when ? 
 
 7. Has the plaintiff ever accepted 
 anything from you in satisfaction of 
 the debt claimed ? 
 
 8. Have you any cross claim against 
 the plaintiff ? And what is it ? If it 
 is a debt, you must make out and 
 annex a bill showing the dates and 
 items. 
 
 9. Have you any other defence to 
 set up ? 
 
 10. Do you admit, and are you 
 willing to pay any part of the claim 
 and have you offered what you owe to 
 the plaintiff and when ? (By paying 
 what you admit with costs to the 
 Registrar within (3) days from this you 
 Avill save further costs, unless the 
 plaintiff recovers against you a larger 
 sum than you so pay.) 
 
 11. Do you wish the cause to be 
 tried by a jury. 
 
 The above questions were put to 
 the defendant by me, 
 
 Thos. Wilkins, Sub. -bailiff. 
 
 Defend mt's answers. 
 
 5. No. Certainly not. 
 
 6. No. I always paid my way. 
 
 7. Yes. I paid part as I told you, 
 and sold him two pigs which covers 
 the rest. 
 
 8. Yes. The plaintiff owes me for 
 two pigs sold him. This is the bill 
 marked (A). (This would be in the 
 ordinary form.) 
 
 9. No. 
 
 10. No. 
 
 11. No. 
 
 Signed, 
 Abraham Smith, Defendant. 
 Dated the day of 18 
 
 NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS.— 7il/P0i^2'J.iV^r. 
 
 If you fail to answer the above questions as required, judg- 
 ment will be given against you without hearing you. 
 
 All money paid on account of this action must be paid to the 
 Registrar, but any payment you have to make to him may be 
 made, and a receipt for the amount paid obtained at any money 
 order office or post office savings' bank, ujyon jiroduction of this 
 'paper and payment of a small fee, or you may pay or send the 
 money in any manner you like to the Eegistrar, provided that 
 every sum of money paid is accompanied with a paper on which 
 is legibly written your name and the letter and No. E. 5, and a 
 statement of the amount of the money paid, and the purpose for 
 which it is to be received.
 
 The Registrar's office is at No. Jury Street, "Warwick. If 
 you require any further information as to the mode of proceeding, 
 you must apply there personally or by letter addressed to the 
 Eegistrar, prepaid and enclosing a stamped envelope addressed 
 to you. 
 
 All communications to the Registrar in this action must be 
 marked plainly with the letter and No. E. 5, or they will not be 
 attended to. 
 
 If you change your address at any time during the progress 
 of this action, you must keep the Registrar informed of such 
 change, otherwise you may have judgment against you in your 
 absence, and be put to great trouble and expense. 
 
 Hours of attendance, &c. 
 
 NOTICE OF DEFENCE (TO BE SENT BY POST) 
 TO PLAINTIFF. 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire. 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick. E. 5. 
 
 C John Jones, plaintiff, 
 Between < and 
 
 ( Abraham Smith, defendant. 
 To the Plaintiff,— 
 
 Take notice that the defendant alleges that you owe him the 
 amount of the enclosed account, and that he paid the rest of 
 your claim about the end of January last to a man with a black 
 moustache, who was then your traveller. If you wish to make 
 any statement in reply, you must do so within three days, 
 by a written paper delivered or sent by post to me at my 
 office. If you wish the cause to be tried by a jury you must 
 say so in your reply. Dated, &c. Yours, &c. 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Eegistrar. 
 
 N.B. — Mark your rejply with the letter and No. E. 5, or it will 
 not he attended to. 
 
 (Plaintiffs Reply.) Little Eatington. 
 
 Sir,— E. 5. 18 
 
 Smith never paid me, and I never had a traveller with a black 
 moustache that I know of As for the pigs. Smith asked me to 
 pay the price to Mr. Williams, the butcher, of Eatington, which 
 I did. I don't want a jury. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 John Jones, plaintiff.
 
 44 
 
 RECORD FOR TRIAL. 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire. 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick. 
 
 C John Jones, plaintiff, E. 6. 
 
 Between < and 
 
 ( Abraham Smith, defendant. 
 This cause will be tried at the Court to be holden at the Town 
 Hall, Stratford-on-Avon, on Tuesday, the day of 
 
 next, at 10 o'clock a.m., precisely, when and where the parties 
 are hereby required to attend and to produce all their evidence. 
 
 The questions to be tried will be only 
 1. — Whether the defendant has paid to a traveller or agent 
 
 of the plaintiff 12s. on account of the debt claimed. 
 2. — Whether the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, paid 
 to one Mr. Williams, of Eatington, butcher, the price of the 
 two pigs mentioned in the defendant's claim of set-off. 
 Dated this day of 18 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Registrar. 
 
 To the Plaintiff and Defendant, — 
 
 Notice. — If you wish to prove the contents of any book or 
 paper, you must bring the original with you if you have it, or 
 summon the person who has it to produce it. If the other 
 party to the action has it, you must immediately give him notice 
 to bring it with him to the Court. You cannot give in evidence 
 what other people told you, but you must bring the witnesses 
 to speak for themselves. Summonses for witnesses may be 
 obtained at the office of any commissioner for taking admissions 
 in a County Court. Any summons intended to be used must be 
 filled up legibly with the names and addresses of the witnesses 
 required, and delivered at or sent by post to the Registrar, 
 County Court Office, Warwick, in sufficient time to allow of its 
 being served, and the witnesses attending. It must be marked 
 with the letter and No. E. 5, and accompanied with a fee of 
 shilling for every witness named in it, and with a sufficient sum 
 of conduct money, time and travelling expenses to the Court. 
 If sent unmarked or not in sufficient time, or without the fees 
 and conduct money, the witnesses will not be summoned. 
 
 If you intend to instruct a solicitor, do so at once, and do not 
 wait until the Court day. 
 
 There are about 1,200 words in the whole of the above 
 proceedings, exclusive of particulars, while the plaint note, 
 summons, and notice of set-off hitherto used contain, as has 
 been pointed out, about 900 words, exclusive of particulars.
 
 45 
 
 The plaint note now in use contains, however, a notice to the 
 plaintiff of the mode in which money is to be paid into and out 
 of Court, and other matters, to which his attention must be 
 called in some way. It is proposed that this should be done by 
 annexing to the form of prsecipe for a monition a printed paper 
 of plain instructions, which may be detached and retained by 
 the plaintiff. This would not form part of the proceedings, 
 which, as proposed, would exceed in length the old one in such 
 a case as that selected for an example by about 800 words. 
 But, against this excess, it is to be remembered that the parties 
 would come into Court with distinct notice of the issues to be 
 tried, and without the usual excuse for asking for an adjourn- 
 ment, that they are taken by surprise by the case on the other 
 side. Under the present system the plaintiff would certainly 
 profess to be taken by surprise by the allegation of payment to 
 his traveller, and the defendant, by the allegation of satisfaction 
 of his set-off by payment to Williams, and an adjournment 
 would certainly be necessary. 
 
 By the proposed new method, at the cost to the Eegistrar 
 of the trouble of composing about 88 words of original matter 
 inserted in two printed forms, to his clerks of filling up blanks 
 in printed forms with a few names, dates, and letters, to the 
 serving officer of filling up a form with 85 words, and of 3d. 
 postage, this necessity would be avoided and the cause disposed 
 of satisfactorily on its merits at a single sitting. 
 
 A case which involves the necessity of a replication has been 
 purposely selected as a specimen, but in the vast majority 
 of cases the issues would be simpler. To the first question the 
 answer would be " No, I never saw them," or " It is my daughter's 
 debt," or " No, I didn't have more than these," (pointing them 
 out) or to the 2nd question — "Yes, I paid for everything as 
 I had it," or, in answer to the 1st and 10th questions, "I owe 
 something, but I don't know how much." In all these cases the 
 proceedings would be short and simple, and in the last, (a very 
 common form of defence,) there would be no notice to reply and 
 no statement from the plaintiff in reply, and the Kecord for trial 
 would state the question to be one of account only, and direct 
 the parties to produce all their books, vouchers, &c. In these 
 cases the trouble imposed on the Eegistrar of filling up printed 
 forms would be infinitesimal, while the plaintiff coming without 
 the proper evidence would be inexcusable. 
 
 No change is suggested in the mode of trial, except that, 
 as above mentioned, the right to a jury should not depend on the 
 amount in, but on the character of the, dispute, and the Judge 
 should be expressly empowered to direct a jury to be summoned
 
 46 
 
 in all cases in whicli he sees fit to do so, and to adjourn 
 any cause for the purpose of having any issue arising in it 
 tried by a jury, and the same rule should apply to assessors 
 to be appointed under the County Court Act, 1875. 
 
 There does not seem to be any good reason why the number 
 of five should have been selected by the framers of the original 
 County Court Acts as the number for the County Court Jury. 
 In the opinion of the author the number is too small. He has 
 judicial experience in his two capacities of Judge of County 
 Courts and Vice-Chairman of Quarter Sessions of both the 
 number five and the number twelve, and he finds that the larger 
 number are usually more attentive to the cases they try and the 
 direction of the Court, than the smaller number, who are 
 sometimes apt to forget the distinction between their duties and 
 those of the Judge, and are also occasionally apt to converse 
 amongst themselves instead of attending to the evidence and the 
 demeanour of the witnesses. Moreover, with the larger number, 
 the effect of the influence of a juryman client of one of 
 the solicitor-advocates engaged, (the prevailing blot on the 
 usefulness of Countv Court Juries) would be less sensibly 
 felt. 
 
 It may not be improper to notice that an opinion in favour of 
 the customary number is to be found expressed in a report made 
 by the Judges of the Superior Courts to the Lord Chancellor in 
 the year 1874. 
 
 VII. 
 
 SUGGESTIONS FOE THE AMENDMENT OF THE 
 CONSTITUTION AND PEOCEDURE OF LOCAL 
 COUETS, CONTINUED. ON THE PEOCEDURE 
 IN ADMINISTEATIVE BUSINESS, EQUITY, 
 ADMIEALTY, AND BANKEUPTCY. 
 
 The only substantial alteration which is proposed in cases 
 in which the relief sought by the plaintiff is of a purely 
 equitable character, or involves the exercise of administrative 
 functions by the Court, is, that some written defence to the 
 plaint, either in the form of a demurrer, or plea, or answer 
 should be compulsory. A copy of the particulars of complaint 
 should be annexed to the monition in the same way as it 
 is now annexed to the summons, and shoiild be as concise as 
 possible. Instead of the questions to be put by the serving
 
 47 
 
 officer, the plaint might be accompanied, in proper cases, by 
 interrogatories to be framed by the plaintiff and answered by the 
 defendant through the post within the prescribed time. Such 
 interrogatories should however, in all cases, be perused by 
 the Registrar, and should be disallowed by him if so framed as 
 to be unintelligible to an illiterate person. The author having 
 been in practice at the Common Law Bar only, does not feel 
 competent to suggest any further alterations in the procedure in 
 matters as to which jurisdiction is given to the County Court by 
 29 and 30 Vict., c. 99, or which have hitherto been within the 
 exclusive cognizance of the Court of Chancery. 
 
 For a similar reason, as to Admiralty and Bankruptcy, and 
 for the further reason of there being no town on his Circuit 
 with Admiralty jurisdiction he prefers to leave any suggestions 
 on these subjects to be made by others of greater experience, 
 but he is bound to add that he has found no difficulty whatever 
 (except such as arises from the inexperience of practitioners) 
 in working his Bankruptcy jurisdiction with the present 
 machinery. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 SUGGESTIONS FOE THE AMENDMENT OF THE 
 CONSTITUTION AND PEOCEDURE OF LOCAL 
 COUETS, CONTINUED. ON THE PROCEDUEE FOE 
 ENFOECING OBEDIENCE TO THE JUDGMENTS 
 AND OEDEES OF THE COUET. 
 
 We now come to consider the method of enforcing obedience to 
 the Judgments and Decrees of the Local Court. 
 
 Judgments and Decrees which cannot be obeyed merely 
 by the payment of a sum of money, and orders for the payment 
 of money held by the debtor in a fiduciary capacity, should, it 
 is conceived, be enforceable by imprisonment as at present, and 
 orders for the payment of money constituting ordinary judgment 
 deljts, should be so enforceable in case of the debtor's ability, and 
 negligent or contumacious default in obeying them. 
 
 Differences of opinion, it is well known, exist on the subject, 
 but unless the power of compelling by some penal process 
 persons who can but will not pay, to pay, is retained, it is 
 difficult to see how the payment of debts, or, (which is 
 perhaps more important) of damages for injuries committed, 
 can be enforced against persons whose property consists only of
 
 48 
 
 their earnings. This, however, is hardly the place for the 
 discussion of this question ; and throughout this paper it is 
 assumed that the powers of all Courts will in this respect 
 be continued as heretofore. 
 
 It is, however, suggested that the present requirement of 
 personal service of the commitment summons on the judgment 
 debtor should be dispensed with, at least in cases in which 
 there has been either personal service of, or an appearance 
 in person to, the monition. It seems as unadvisable to require 
 personal service of the commitment summons, as to continue 
 the present system of non-personal service of the original process. 
 Fraudulent debtors are more likely to be found before the 
 commencement of the action than after judgment obtained 
 against them ; and much more trouble is now (it is believed) 
 wasted in ineffectual efforts to serve persons of this class after 
 judgment, than would be incurred by serving them in the first 
 instance personally. 
 
 It will have been observed that by the suggestions for the 
 service of original process contained above, (see ante page 43) 
 defendants are warned to keep the Eegistrar informed of their 
 addresses. It should be the duty of both plaintiff and 
 defendant, until the proceedings are wound up by a satisfied 
 judgment, to keep the Eegistrar from time to time acquainted 
 with their postal addresses ; and service of all process subsequent 
 to the monition, and {inter alia) of a judgment summons, 
 by post at the last indicated place of address of the person 
 to whom the process is directed should be sufficient, unless the 
 Judge should be satisfied that it had not come to his knowledge, 
 and had not been kept from his knowledge by any fraud or 
 artifice to which he was privy. In cases in which no postal 
 address has been given by the judgment debtor, or in which the 
 summons posted is returned through the dead letter office, it should 
 be competent for the Judge to direct service in such a manner 
 as in his opinion would best secure the ends of justice. Letters, 
 &c., sent from the Kegistrar's ofiice by post should not have the 
 words " County Courts," or any similar notice of what they are, 
 printed on the outside. Any mark required for the identification 
 of the stationery should be inside, and out of sight until the 
 envelope is opened. 
 
 Every warrant issued for the commitment of any judgment 
 debtor, should state on its face whether it was issued on hearing 
 the party committed, or by default ; and in all cases in which a 
 judgment debtor is arrested on a warrant issued in his absence, 
 the nearest Magistrate, or the Governor of the gaol, should 
 be bound to release him on his finding sufficient bail to secure
 
 49 
 
 his appearance at the Court to which he was summoned, at 
 its then next sitting, then and there to render himself into 
 custody and abide the order of the Court ; and every officer 
 executing a warrant of commitment should be provided with a 
 proper form of recognizance. The Court should, upon the 
 surrender, have power to direct the immediate or suspended 
 enforcement of the warrant, or its supersession, upon such terms 
 as might be just, and the order then made should be indorsed 
 thereon. 
 
 The Principal Local Judge only should have jurisdiction 
 in respect of the hearing and determination of commitment 
 summonses, but the Eegistrar, whether acting as such, or as 
 Travelling Judge, should have jurisdiction to suspend the 
 execution of any warrant granted at a previous sitting of the 
 Principal Local Court, until its next succeeding sitting, on proof 
 of altered circumstances supervening. Evidence as to the 
 debtor's means should be taken by affidavit, unless either party 
 or the Judge should specially require the attendance of 
 witnesses. In the event of the Principal Local Judge being 
 satisfied at any time during the currency of the period of 
 suspension of a warrant of commitment, upon an ex 'parte, 
 application made to him in or out of Court by the plaintiff that 
 the defendant has since the hearing of the commitment 
 summons, become possessed of means sufficient to satisfy 
 the judgment debt, and is about to abscond for the purpose 
 of defeating or delaying the plaintiff, such Judge should 
 have power to direct the immediate issue of the warrant unless 
 the defendant should find security to appear at the then next 
 sitting of the Principal Local Court and abide its order. An 
 application for this purpose made by the plaintiff, maliciously 
 and without reasonable or probable cause, should be punishable 
 as a contempt of Court, whether the applicant should have 
 rendered himself liable to be indicted for perjury or not, and the 
 Principal Local Court should have a summary power of ordering 
 satisfaction to be made by the applicant to the party aggrieved. 
 
 The consideration of the method to be followed in the collec- 
 tion of the amounts ordered to be paid, necessarily involves a 
 few words on a branch of the present system, which has, 
 unfortunately, been made the subject of an unfavourable report 
 by the Judicature Commissioners. It is, however, the opinion 
 of nearly every person, judicial or otherwise, who has had 
 official experience of its working, that the " Banking system " is 
 most beneficial, and that it is absolutely necessary, if the 
 practice of ordering the payment of small debts by instalments 
 is to be maintained.
 
 50 
 
 If it were not for this system, which provides simple and 
 clear evidence of the payment of each instalment by the debtor, 
 the greater part of the time of the Court would be occupied, to 
 the grievous hindrance of the other business, in the settlement 
 of disputes between judgment creditors and debtors as to 
 whether any, and how many of the instalments ordered, had in 
 fact been paid — disputes which in the majority of cases it would 
 be impossible to settle satisfactorily, and the raising of which 
 would increase to a fearful extent the crime of perjury, already 
 lamentably common in the County Courts. 
 
 But it has by no means been forgotten, that with the proposed 
 abolition of the offices of the Courts converted into Travelling 
 Courts, the destruction of the Banks which they constitute, 
 follows as a matter of course. And it would be manifestly 
 inconvenient, if not impossible, that the debtor, on paying every 
 instalment, or the creditor, on receiving it, should be obliged 
 to travel to and wait upon the Eegistrar of the Principal Local 
 Court at the Court town, distant it may be many miles. The 
 mode then in which it is suggested that the benefits of the 
 existing banking system should be kept up, without the main- 
 tenance of the existing establishments, is by utilising the 
 means afforded by the post office. A debtor may, it is 
 true, now remit his instalment to the Eegistrar by post office 
 order. But this involves not merely the commission on the 
 post office order itself, but its transmission by post together with 
 the printed form of receipt for the signature of the Eegistrar, 
 which latter has to be returned to the debtor by post. The 
 debtor has thus to bear, in addition to the commission, the 
 expense of postage both ways, and he has to procure writing 
 paper and direct an envelope legibly, no small difficulty to 
 a large class of County Court judgment debtors. 
 
 The greater part of these difficulties would be got rid'of by 
 authorising the judgment debtor, instead of taking out a post 
 office order, to pay the amount which he desires to pay into 
 Court into the nearest post office savings' bank to be placed to 
 the credit of the Eegistrar at the post office savings' bank of 
 the Court Town. The judgment debtor thus paying in money 
 should be obliged to produce at the time of paying in, the form 
 of judgment paper now in use, or his admission paper, on which 
 the postmaster should stamp or sign a receipt, which receipt 
 should be a sufficient discharge for the amount paid in. Every 
 sum thus transferred to the credit of the Eegistrar should be 
 identified by the letter and No. of the plaint in respect of which 
 it is paid, and this letter and No. should be entered in the post 
 ofi&ce account books. Instead of the present system of making
 
 51 
 
 the first instalment payable 28 days after the date of the 
 judgment, and the succeeding ones at intervals of four weeks, 
 there should be fixed settling days in every calendar month, on 
 or before which the debtor should be bound to pay his current 
 instalment, and certain other days fixed at a prescribed interval, 
 on which it should be the duty of the Eegistrar to present his 
 savings' bank book to be made up, so as to show the amounts 
 paid in, and on or after which days the judgment creditors 
 should be entitled to draw them out. In order to facilitate the 
 dra%\dng out by judgment creditors of the sums to which they 
 become entitled, they should have the option of naming agents 
 in the Principal Local Court Town to receive and give receipts for 
 the money, or of naming some post office savings' bank into 
 which the sums from time to time due to them should be paid. 
 It should be the duty of the Registrar, within a prescribed time 
 after the periodical making up of his book, to transfer in the 
 ordinary way now in use to the post office savings' bank named 
 by the judgment creditor the net sum to which he is then 
 entitled. 
 
 The deposits thus made should stand to the credit of the 
 judgment creditor, and be disposable by him in the ordinary 
 way, and the entry of the transaction in the ordinary post office 
 books should be a sufficient discharge to the Eegistrar. By this 
 plan, without involving the post office officials in the trouble of 
 any further accounts than those ordinarily incident to the 
 transaction of their savings' bank business, the benefits of the 
 County Court banking system would be preserved, while the 
 expense of maintaining a large number of offices, which is under- 
 stood to be the principal objection to it, would be got rid of. 
 
 No interest should be allowed on the funds thus in the 
 savings' banks, nntd. they assume the ultimate form of ordinary 
 deposits to the credit of the judgment creditor. The post office 
 would thus get the benefit of the accruing interest on the 
 floating sums in its hands, which, if the settling days were fixed 
 on difierent days in the difierent Court Towns, would always 
 amount to a handsome sum. The interest on this retained by 
 the post office, would, it is conceived, be sufficient to pay any 
 extra clerks whom it might be necessary to employ. 
 
 The foregoing suggestions are made on the assumption that 
 they would meet with the approval of the post office authori- 
 ties. But in order to provide for the contingency of objections 
 being raised by them to the proposed plan, on the ground that 
 it will increase the labour of their department, without providing 
 adequately for the remuneration of the persons employed, it is 
 suggested as an alternative that aU payments into Court might
 
 52 
 
 be made "by post office order, with fhis difference from an 
 ordinary order, that instead of the order itself being delivered 
 to the applicant for transmission by him, a receipt for the 
 amount paid in should be handed to him, identified by the letter 
 and No. of the plaint, and the order itself transmitted to the 
 Eegistrar by the Postmaster. As many of these orders would 
 be for very small sums, a special rate of commission should, if 
 possible, be arranged with the Postmaster-General. The com- 
 mission should be paid by the sender on the transmission of the 
 order, but if the judgment debtor should bring an instalment 
 without the commission, the amount should not be refused, but 
 the balance, after deducting the proper commission, remitted to 
 the Eegistrar, and a receipt given to the sender for the balance 
 only, on account of debt. Forms of the proposed receipt will 
 be found in Appendix E. It is not thought worth while to 
 suggest any special form of money order. 
 
 With regard to payment out of Court to the judgment creditor, 
 it is conceived that he should be entitled, as of right, to have 
 the amount placed to his credit in a post office savings' bank, 
 (subject to the rules of the post office for the time being 
 affecting these deposits), or to have it remitted by post office 
 order, or to receive it in person or by agent. In all cases in 
 which the party entitled elects to have the money transmitted 
 to him in any way through the post office or by agent, the 
 receipt of the Postmaster of the Court Town, or of the agent, 
 should be an effectual discharge to the Eegistrar. See Consolidated 
 
 Orders xxxvii., r. 5. 
 
 It is not suggested that the existing processes should be inter- 
 fered with in substance, except so far as they are expressly 
 noticed, but it is suggested that where a warrant of execution 
 issues against goods, and the Principal Local Judge, or a 
 magistrate acting for the Petty Sessional Division, is satisfied 
 upon oath that they have been fraudulently concealed or locked 
 up to avoid seizure, either of them should be empowered to 
 issue a search warrant authorising the holder, in the presence of 
 a constable, and subject to such restrictions to prevent oppression 
 or breach of the peace as might be thought advisable, to break 
 open the doors of the place, or suspected place of concealment. 
 It should, however, be lawful for any person aggrieved by the 
 exercise of this power to apply summarily to the Principal Local 
 Judge for redress, and he, after hearing such parties as he should 
 think proper to have summoned before him, either should 
 dismiss the application, or order any person who shall have been 
 guilty of extortion, oppression, or of doing unnecessary damage 
 to the place of deposit, to make satisfaction.
 
 53 
 
 There should also l3e some summary method of testing the 
 title to property against which execution issues, without actual 
 seizure and interpleader. If a County Court Judge, when 
 informed that a judgment debtor summoned on a commitment 
 summons, is carrying on a prosperous trade, asks, as he often 
 does, " Why, then, do you not seize his goods V he invariably 
 receives the answer, " There is a bill of sale," or " They are in 
 his brother's," or " father's," or " mother's name," as the case may 
 be. It is suggested that whenever the bailiff attempting to 
 seize in execution goods ostensibly in the order and disposition 
 of the judgment debtor, is met by the claim of a third person, 
 it should be his duty, if he does not seize, to return the reason 
 specially, and, thereupon, the execution creditor, without any 
 process of interpleader, should be at liberty to summon the 
 claimant to defend his title to the goods, and the summons 
 should contain an injunction to the claimant against parting 
 with the alleged ownership or control of the goods pending the 
 proceedings. In such cases the onus prohandi of his title should 
 be on the claimant, who should not be entitled to defeat the 
 execution unless he succeeded in showing either a title para- 
 mount to that of the judgment debtor, or if derivative, an 
 absolute purchase for valuable consideration equivalent to the 
 full pecuniary value of the goods at the time of the purchase. 
 If he should succeed in proving only a title as mortgagee, or as 
 purchaser by sale for less than the fau' market value, the Court 
 should have power to order a sale of the goods, and out of the 
 proceeds the claimant to be reimbursed such sum as should, 
 under the circumstances, be just, and the balance, if any, to be 
 paid to the execution creditor, and should have full power over 
 the costs. There should be an alternative power, instead of 
 directing a sale, to declare the judgment debt a charge on the 
 goods in such order of priority as justice might require. These 
 powers, however, should not prejudice marriage settlements, and 
 a bond fide assignment of goods before marriage to the trustees 
 of an ante-nuptial settlement should always be treated as a sale 
 for the full value. It is submitted that the effect of this method 
 would be to defeat fraudulent assignments made for the purpose 
 of defeating creditors, while, at the same time, it would enable 
 claims in which there might be a hond fide question in dispute, 
 to be tried, without subjecting the claimant to the annoyance of 
 having his goods seized ; and the power to declare the debt a 
 charge without directing a sale would often save a struggling 
 honest debtor from being ruined by being sold up. The Court 
 should have the further power of ordering the claimant, in proper 
 cases, to find security against the goods being eloigned pending
 
 54 
 
 the trial of the title, and in default should foreclose him from 
 setting up any claim to them. 
 
 It is not suggested that the proceedings in interpleader 
 (except as aforesaid), those for the attachment of debts, or any 
 other matters in respect of which the provisions of the Common 
 Law Procedure Acts have been applied to the County Courts 
 should be meddled with, except so far as they have been altered 
 by the new Consolidated Orders and the operation of the 
 Judicature Act. 
 
 It would be well, however, if the suggestions contained in 
 this paper were adopted, that these Orders and the County 
 Court Act, 1875, should be subjected to a very careful revision 
 before any further statutory change is introduced, with the 
 object of providing that the necessary Statute to be passed 
 should deal so comprehensively with matters of detail, as to avoid 
 any question whether the rules framed under it would be ultra 
 vires, and that the rules themselves should leave no matter of 
 detail unprovided for. Supplemental rules to those of 1875 have 
 already become necessary. 
 
 IX. 
 
 ON THE FINANCIAL AEEANGEMENTS DUEING THE 
 TEANSITION PEEIOD. 
 
 The next question remaining to be considered is that of the 
 financial arrangements for providing for the transition period. The 
 27 Judges, whose services would become unnecessary cannot 
 lawfully be, and the Eegistrars whose Courts are proposed to be 
 abolished ought not in common honesty to be, dismissed from 
 their offices without compensation, and the High Bailiffs appointed 
 before 1866 would likewise be entitled to compensation. 
 
 It would therefore be the case, no doubt, that, great as 
 the saving would eventually be, the suggested system, if adopted, 
 would at the outset involve some pecuniary loss, and this 
 should, of course, in the interests of the public, be reduced to 
 the minimum point. 
 
 First, with respect to the Judges. There are at present 17 of 
 the number who have entered upon or passed their 40th 
 year of standing at the Bar, and there are five gentlemen who 
 have held their offices since the first establishment of the Courts 
 in March, 18-47. In the ordinary course of nature it is 
 impossible but that the vacancies occurring in this list annually
 
 55 
 
 must be nuinerous. Tweuty-two deaths and resignations liave 
 occurred between the publication of the Law List in 1871, and 
 the same period in 1876, i.e., at the average rate of 4"4 a year; 
 and assuming them to continue at this rate, a period of 614 
 years woukl elapse before the Judges would, by the ordinary 
 course of nature, be reduced to the number of 30. In the 
 meantime, however, the existing Judges could be utilised to 
 carry the proposed scheme into effect. 
 
 A selection of the 30 considered to be most eligible might be 
 made to fill the post of Principal Local Judge. The remaining 
 27 might not unreasonably be called on to discharge the judicial 
 duties intended to be imposed on the Registrar of the Principal 
 Local Court until they vacate their offices, Registrars paid on the 
 basis of the present rate of remuneration, and discharging 
 ministerial duties only, being retained temporarily in those 
 Principal Local Courts, the travelling Courts dependent on 
 which are served by existing County Court Judges. 
 
 These Judges might be allotted amongst the several smaller 
 circuits, omitting some of the largest manufacturing districts, where 
 the business of the Registrar's office being already very large, and 
 probably occupying the greater part of his time, it would 
 be more likely that the place of Registrar-Travelling Judge 
 would be satisfactorily and willingly filled by the existing 
 Registrar than in the smaller districts. In these it might be 
 advisable to take the chance of vacancies occurring in the office 
 of Registrar during the performance of the duties of Travelling 
 Judge by existing County Court Judges, in which case the 
 appointment of the new Registrars might either be temporary, 
 or if permanent, of men able and willing to undertake the new 
 duties when the proper time should arrive, but content with the 
 old salary in the meantime. 
 
 A scheme providing thus temporarily for the employment of 
 the 27 Judges, wlio would not be made Principal Local Judges 
 will be found in Appendix D. 
 
 Whenever a vacancy occurs amongst the 30 Principal Local 
 Judges it is suggested that it should be filled up by the 
 promotion of one of the 27 not already occupying that office, 
 so long as any of them fit in the opinion of the appointing 
 authority should remain. As vacancies by death, resignations, 
 or promotions, occur in the ranks of the 27, these should not be 
 filled up, but the substitution of Registrars gradually effected. 
 
 A County Court Judge has (as lias been already pointed out), 
 no official status or precedence ; if therefore the work imposed 
 on those selected for the inferior position were not increased, or 
 were lightened, they could not fairly complain. That it would
 
 56 
 
 he lightened, at least in the number of days on which sittings 
 are required, ^vill (assuming the calculations contained in 
 AiDpendix C. to be well founded) be ob^dous by reference to that 
 Appendix, and Appendix D. part I., and by a comparison 
 with the Parliamentary returns of 1872. According to those 
 returns, of the 57 County Court Judges then in ofiice one sat on 
 196 days, five more on 160 days and upwards, nine on 150 and 
 under 160, 15 on 140 and under 150, nine on 130 and under 140, 
 11 on 120 and under 130, seven on 110 and less than 120, 
 and none less than 110. By the scheme suggested in Appendix D., 
 the average of the days of sitting by the Judge of the 
 Travelling Court in one Circuit only — the Metropolitan — would 
 amount to 165 days, five would require 140 and under 150, and 
 two 120 and under 130. It is believed, moreover, that if the 
 proposed plan were tried, the estimate of days required for the 
 sittings of the Travelling Courts would be found to be in excess 
 of the number actually required, and it is a matter to be taken 
 into account that by being permitted to hold several Courts 
 in one day the Judges would be subjected to much less incon- 
 venience than at present. 
 
 Assuming that the selected 30 Judges were to be paid £2,000 
 per annum, an additional sum of £15,000 would have to be 
 provided annually. But, if the number of deaths or retirements 
 amongst the existing County Court Judges continued to go on at 
 the average rate, and those occurring amongst the 30 Principal 
 Local Judges were filled up by the promotion of men selected 
 from the 27 retained to serve the Travelling Courts, the public 
 purse would gain on an average a sum of £6,600 a year, 
 by these, and thus in less than seven years the cost of Judges' 
 salaries would be reduced from its present amount of £85,500 
 to £60,000 per annum. 'Of course it may well happen that if 
 the experiment were tried the deaths and retirements during the 
 first seven years would not equal the average, and it is scarcely 
 possible that they should happen at regular intervals, so as 
 to make the above calculation accurate, as regards each year. 
 But the deficiencies of one year would probably be replaced by 
 the excess of another, and the deaths, &c., would be as likely to 
 be over as under the average, so that the estimated rate of 
 recovery from loss does not seem to be an unfair one. 
 
 Next, with regard to the Registrars. The labour of ascertaining 
 the amount of the salaries of these officers all over England 
 would occupy much more time than has been available for 
 the purpose. Warwickshire, exclusive of Birmingham, is 
 therefore taken as a fair example of one of the proposed 
 new jurisdictions. Under the proposed system Warwick would
 
 57 
 
 be the seat of the Priucipal Local Court holclen for the 
 jurisdiction, and it would absorb the offices of the following 
 Courts, viz. : — 
 
 Alcester, Nuneaton, Southam, 
 
 Atherstone, K^gby, Stratford-on-Avon, 
 
 Coventry, Solihull, Tamworth. 
 
 The total number of causes entered in these Courts in the year 
 1872 was 6,690. In the Court at Alcester there were 419 plaints 
 levied in 1872, the total sum claimed in which was £897. The 
 fees received from all sources were £137. Of the plaints levied, 
 90 were settled under circumstances which involved the payment 
 of half the hearing fee only, 159 were determined in Court, and 
 170 were withdrawn or otherwise settled without coming into 
 Court. It is impossible, without a minute search through the 
 Court books, to ascertain the exact amount of fees apportionable 
 to each of the separate heads of plaints, or what is the exact per- 
 centage, because in reckoning the amount of fees, fractions of £1. 
 are reckoned as £1. On the assumption however that the 
 average amounts of the settled, withdrawn, and admitted cases 
 are proportionably equal to those of the causes heard, the amount 
 of the claims in the settled and withdrawn cases would be 
 within a minute fraction of £366-07, against £338-21 recovered 
 by trial, and £192-72 in which judgment was entered by con- 
 sent, &c. If these claims each consisted of an even number of 
 pounds, the proportion of fees received on the 170 withdrawn 
 cases would be (omitting minute decimals) £18-3, and on the 90 
 admitted cases £19-27 for summons and hearing; those on the 
 159 cases heard in Court £50-73. But this calculation cannot 
 be taken as correct, for there are the additional fees of Is. for 
 service in the case of claims over 40s., Is. each for defendants 
 above three, and the increased percentage arising from fractions 
 of £1 being treated as £1 to be taken into account. If 25 per 
 cent, be added to each head to represent the proportion of in- 
 creased percentage and the extra shillings, this would increase 
 the fees thus receivable to £22-88 in the withdrawn, £24-09 in 
 the admitted, and £63-41 in the adjudicated cases, leaving for 
 the miscellaneous fees other than for summons and hearing, 
 £26-62. 
 
 It is, of course, believed and hoped, that a very large propor- 
 tion of cases now treated as determined, and which, it is to be 
 remembered, include all cases in which the defendant does not 
 answer when the case is called on, would be disposed of under the 
 new system out of Court l^efore Commissioners, but some time 
 must necessarily elapse before the public would become familiar 
 ■with the new practice, and therefore in ascertaining the sums
 
 58 
 
 applicable to compensation to the Registrars proposed to be 
 abolished, it would be reasonable to assume that those cases only 
 which are now settled out of Court, or in which judgment is 
 given by admission, would come before the new Commissioners 
 during the first years of the new system. If the present scale 
 of fees were maintained with respect to cases brought into 
 Court, and 1872, which has been selected at random, for reasons 
 above stated,* taken as a specimen year, the following results 
 would ensue in the case of Alcester, subject to corrections in the 
 decimals, which it is not thought worth while to work out 
 beyond two places. 
 
 £46"97 Avould cease to be receivable, and would be 
 replaced by fees paid to Commissioners for taking, 
 and to the Principal Local Court for recording, 
 admissions. 
 £6341 would find its way into the Principal Local Court 
 as entry and hearing fees on causes entered there for 
 trial. 
 £26'62 would find its way into the same Court in the 
 shape of fees for miscellaneous proceedings occurring 
 eitlier during litigation or after judgment, and would 
 
 still be receivable. 
 
 £1371)0. 
 
 It has been assumed that all the cases withdrawn are settled 
 by the admission of the defendant. Some .few, no doubt, are 
 settled by a nolle prosequi, the plaintiff finding his case untenable, 
 but as in all those cases the fees would be received for entering 
 the action, it is not thought worth while to calculate the per- 
 centage separately. On all cases settled by admission before 
 Commissioners there would be an additional fee of 3d. in the £. 
 The annual amount recovered by these admissions M'ould be, on 
 the basis of the above calculations, £558'79, on which £7"00 
 (within a minute fraction) would be receivable by the Principal 
 Local Court for recording the admissions. The total amount to 
 be paid into the Treasury of the Principal Local Court at 
 Warwick, in lieu of the fees new received at Alcester, would, 
 therefore, if there were no Registrars of abolished Courts to be 
 compensated, be as follows : — 
 
 Pees on causes entered for trial £63'41 
 
 „ for recording admissions 6'98 
 
 „ on miscellaneous proceedings 26'61 
 
 £97-00 
 * See ants p. 25.
 
 59 
 
 Assuming that the Eegistrar of this Court was appointed 
 previously to 1866, his salary ^yould amount for the year 1872 
 to about £165, and this amount would have to he provided 
 annually out of some fund during the life of the existing 
 Eegistrar. The difterence, however, between £137, the amount 
 of the fees on all proceedings and the salary now paid to the 
 Eegistrar, is in this case loss already under the present system, 
 independently of all the other expenses of the Court. In some 
 other cases there will be a surplus of fees after the payment of 
 the Eegistrar applicable to those expenses. It will, therefore, 
 be necessary in order to avoid loss in the pa}Tnent of compen- 
 sation, to provide a fund at least equal to the amount of the 
 fees now receivable, which shall be applicable to compensation. 
 
 The first step towards providing this fund would be, to 
 appoint every abolished Eegistrar a Commissioner for taking 
 admissions under the new system, and to make him account, 
 in aid of his compensation, for the profits of the office. 
 
 In the case of Alcester, upon the assumption hitherto made, 
 the number and amounts of the plaints which would be annually 
 replaced by admissions before Commissioners would be 260, 
 covering a sum of £558"79, or an average of a little more 
 than £2 per plaint. The average sum receivable therefrom 
 would be 2s. for each admission or £26. Assuming that 
 two-thirds of the admissions only were made before the abolished 
 Eegistrar, and the rest before Commissioners residing at other 
 places in the district, the net receipts by the old Eegistrar 
 on this account would be £17"33, so that the net loss of fees on 
 this head would be £11 9 •67. But the fees still receivable .from 
 Alcester by the Principal Local Court at Warwick would 
 be available towards a further reduction of the loss. These 
 would amount by the calculation already explained to £97 and 
 would reduce the net loss to £22'67. For this annual payment 
 during the life of the existing Eegistrar, the whole establishment 
 of the Court would be got rid of, except only the compensation 
 to the High Bailiff, and the sum paid to the owner (in this case 
 Lord Hertford) for the use of the Court room. The cesser of 
 the rent of offices alone would reduce the loss to a trifle. 
 
 The High Bailiff", if appointed before 1866, would also have 
 to be compensated, but as in the case put the whole of the 
 expenses of his office are a dead loss already, there would be no 
 additional loss on this head to be taken into account. On the 
 other hand, so long as his salary or compensation is paid, 
 he might fairly be called on to assist the High Bailiff of the 
 Jurisdiction in the service and execution of process. The 
 aUowance for a sub-bailiff would cease, and be swallowed up in
 
 60 
 
 the allowances to be made to the High Bailiff of the Principal 
 Local Court. 
 
 Without going in every case through the calculations in detail, 
 the following table will show, on the basis of the returns of 
 1872, the amount of loss which the new system might be 
 calculated to entail during the first year of its operation in 
 the County of Warwick, exclusive of Birmingham, it being 
 assumed that the same sum which was in that year provided 
 out of fees towards, or in full of the Eegistrar's salaries and 
 other expenses, has still to be provided. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Total 
 
 Fees in 
 
 1872. 
 
 Fees still 
 receiv- 
 able by 
 
 the Prin- 
 cipal 
 Local 
 Court. 
 
 Fees 
 receiv- 
 able by the 
 Registrar 
 
 and 
 applicable 
 
 in 
 reduction 
 of com- 
 pensation. 
 
 NetLoss. 
 
 Net 
 Gain. 
 
 Alcester 
 
 £ 
 
 137 
 144 
 799 
 309 
 343 
 121 
 112 
 241 
 108 
 
 £ 
 
 97 
 
 94 57 
 632-88 
 222-9 
 215-86 
 
 76-67 
 
 71-6 
 172 15 
 
 92-51 
 
 £ 
 17-33 
 14-46 
 91 
 33-4 
 51-86 
 13-2 
 11-2 
 40 
 33-86 
 
 £ 
 22-67 
 34-97 
 75-12 
 52-7 
 75-28 
 31-13 
 29-2 
 28-85 
 
 £ 
 18 37 
 
 Atherstone 
 
 
 Nuneaton 
 
 Huabv 
 
 Solihull 
 
 Southam 
 
 Stratford- on- Avon 
 
 Tamworth 
 
 
 2,314 
 
 1,676-14 
 
 306-31 
 
 349-92 
 
 18-37 
 
 The above table shows, therefore, a net loss of £331 '5 5 out of 
 fees amounting to £2,314. This loss has, however, to be 
 corrected by the subtraction of the rent of the County Court 
 offices. Putting this at an average of £15 per Court it would 
 in the case under consideration amount to £145, reducing 
 the loss on the first year to £186'55 only. 
 
 The Eegistrar's salaries, in the case of the above nine Courts, 
 amounted in 1872 to £2,145. If the displaced Eegistrars were 
 bought out instead of being paid their annual salary by 
 way of compensation, the following would be the result 
 financially. Calculating the value of the Eegistrar's salary as an 
 annuity upon the basis of the tables annexed to the Succession 
 Duty Act, 1853, (16 and 17 Vict., c. 51,) and the average age of 
 the existing Eegistrars at 50, which is a low estimate of their 
 average age, the amount required to buy out the Eegistrars
 
 61 
 
 of the nine Courts above proposed to be absorbed in the 
 Principal Local Court at Warwick would be ^26,102-47. If 
 this sum were borrowed' at four per cent., and repaid by 
 instalments spread over 30 years the charge on the first year 
 would be — 
 
 Interest <£'10441 
 
 One-thirtieth of Principal d£'870-01 
 
 dei914-ll 
 
 But the amounts received for fees from the above Courts 
 in 1872 amounted to £2,314: or £1Q9 in excess of the 
 Eegistrars' salaries, and this sum therefore ought to be added 
 to the charge for every year, bringing the total charge for the 
 first year to d£'2,08311. Against this the fees calculated to 
 be receivable would amount to <£'1981-45 ; to wit £167614 
 for fees actually paid into the Treasury of the Principal Local 
 Court, and £306'31 which the displaced Eegistrars w^ould earn 
 as Commissioners, and for which they would have to account. 
 To these sums should be added the saving effected by the 
 cesser of the Court of&ce rents, estimated at ^6*145, which would 
 make the total amount available as a set off against the first 
 year's charge of £2,08311 the sum of £2,12615, leaving in the 
 first year £43"34 in addition to the £169 above mentioned, to be 
 applicable to the compensation of the High Bailiffs, and 
 the increased salaries and expenses of the Principal Local Court 
 at Warwick. The amount thus applicable would increase year 
 by year by a sum of £34-8, the interest on the amount annually 
 paid off It is not considered necessary to occupy the time 
 of the reader by working out similar calculations in the cases of 
 all the Courts proposed to be abolished, but enough, it is 
 conceived, has been said to show that it would be possible 
 to make a fair and equitable bargain with the Ptegistrars 
 proposed to be displaced, without subjecting the public purse to 
 any unreasonable burden. 
 
 In the cases of some of the large manufacturing districts 
 where the local area comprised in a jurisdiction is small and the 
 population dense, and where the Courts, as they exist at present, 
 are profitable, it might be considered advisable to preserve 
 some of the existing Eegistrars' offices as branch offices of 
 the Principal Local Court, presided over by officers subordinate 
 to the Principal Local Eegistrar, and assisting him in all his 
 work except that of Travelling Judge.* In these cases it would 
 not be necessary to appoint Commissioners for taking admissions 
 
 * See ante p. 32.
 
 62 
 
 within the district of the branch office, as that office would 
 be readily accessible. Let us take the Manchester jurisdiction 
 as an example of what the pecuniary result would be, 
 assuming that the Eegistrar's office of the Salford Court were 
 continued as a branch office of Manchester. At this j)lace the 
 plaints entered in 1872 were on an average for very nearly ^2 
 a piece. Of these 3,440 were settled without judgment, 
 and represent fees to the amount of ^£'344. 2,740 were 
 judgments by consent or admission and represent fees to 
 the amount of .£'548, making a total of £892. If all these 
 cases came into the office under the new system as admissions 
 the fees would amount to .^"'772, to wit £618 the fees for taking, 
 and £154 the fees for recording the admissions, showing a loss of 
 df 120. In this case the 25 per cent, for fractions of £1, and the 
 extra shillings has not been added, because in fact the amounts 
 sued for average slightly below, and not above £2 per plaint. 
 
 In the case of so large a Court as Salford, the total fees 
 received in which in 1872 were no less than £3,352, the loss of 
 £120 per annum is not a matter of much consequence, but the 
 loss would be more than saved on the occurrence of a vacancy 
 in the office of Eegistrar, by the appointment of a subordinate 
 to the Manchester Principal Local Eegistrar in his place at a 
 lower salary. 
 
 The whole of the above calculations with respect to the 
 financial results of the suggested changes, proceed on the 
 assumption that the number of cases taken by way of admission 
 before Commissioners, will about equal the number of plaints 
 settled out of Court, plus the consents. No allowance has been 
 made for those cases settled out of Court in which the settle- 
 ment is in the nature of a nolle prosequi. The reason for not 
 making any such allowance in calculating the apportionment of 
 the fees received under the present system to the various heads 
 has been already pointed out, the reason for not doing so in 
 calculating the fees receivable under the proposed system is, 
 that the entry of a nolle prosequi by the plaintiff implies that 
 there is a good defence, and that the cause is really litigious. 
 In these cases, therefore, the plaint would be entered and the 
 monition issued, and if the fees are levied as suggested further 
 on, there would be a larger sum to receive from these cases than 
 from the cases settled by admission.* 
 
 It may be objected that the above calculations are fallacious 
 on one or other of two grounds, either 
 
 1. — That the public will not take advantage of the process 
 provided for admission, but that creditors will sue their debtors 
 
 * See post p. 66.
 
 63 
 
 in a hostile manner as heretofore, so that there will be nothing, 
 or next to nothing, for the abolished Eegistrars to receive qud 
 Commissioners, or 
 
 2. — That if the system is successful, the Court fees of Is., 2s., 
 and sometimes os. in the £ will be reduced to 3d., so that there 
 will be a serious loss of income in the Principal Local Courts. 
 
 1. — To the first of these objections it is answered that if 
 creditors and their debtors refuse to avail themselves of the 
 machinery provided for admission in the case of undisputed 
 debts, the amount which they will have to pay for the luxury of 
 litigation will more than indemnify the Treasury against any loss 
 in consequence of increased compensation to displaced Eegistrars, 
 and after that charge has ceased, will increase the profits of the 
 Courts. 
 
 2. — To the second it is answered that if the proposed scheme 
 should be adopted and were successful, the Commissioners would 
 compete with the Local Eegistrars of the High Court of Justice 
 for business in entering judgments in undefended cases, and 
 they would obtain most of those in which the fee of 3d. in the £ 
 for recording, plus the Commissioner's fee of £1, is less than the 
 costs which could be indorsed on a writ of summons. Besides, 
 if the suggested system were found to work, the litigious 
 business of the Principal Local Court would include many more 
 cases than at present in which more than .£'20 would be in 
 dispute. The fees for entry and hearing on all cases above ^20 
 amount to £3 a piece, and the successful encouragement of the 
 entry of these more important cases, bringing in as they would 
 under the proposed system, fees increasing in proportion to the 
 amount in dispute however great that might be, would at once 
 recoup any falling off in the amount of fees received from non- 
 litigious business, and lighten the labours of the Superior Judges.* 
 
 In addition to the compensation to be provided to the 
 abolished Eegistrars, it would be necessary to provide increased 
 salaries for the new officers, who would combine the duties of 
 Eegistrar with those of Travelling Judge. It has already been 
 suggested that the Eegistrars should receive for their services, as 
 Travelling Judges, additional salaries, amounting in the whole 
 to £25,034? 17s. Od,, plus the existing maximum salary of their 
 present office, and a composition for the fees which they now 
 receive for their own use. The gross total of this charge, 
 inclusive of everything except the composition for fees, would 
 amount to £82,334 17s. annually, but so much of it as consists 
 of additional salaries paid to the Eegistrars as Travelling Judges 
 would only be required at the outset on Circuits 2 and 3. On 
 
 • See post p. 66.
 
 64 
 
 no other Circuits would any such additional salary be payable 
 until the happening of a vacancy in the office of County Court 
 Judge. And the first appointments might be made from the 
 existing Kegistrars already in receipt of £700 per annum salary, 
 for if it were not unfair to debar the Judges who were originally 
 appointed with liberty to practise, from practice, without increa- 
 sing their salaries, d fortiori it would not be unreasonable to 
 debar the Registrars, giving them an increase of salary, and any 
 Registrar refusing to accept the post of Registrar and Travelling 
 Judge, under the proposed new system, might be fairly taken 
 to have forfeited all claim to compensation. The sum thus to 
 be provided in excess of the present payments to Registrars 
 would amount therefore only to £25,634 17s., making the total 
 amount to be paid to the Principal Local Judges and the 
 Registrar-Travelling Judges of the Principal Local Courts, 
 £85,634 17s., or £134 17s. only in excess of the amount now 
 consumed in Judges' salaries alone, leaving the gain which would 
 yearly accrue to the public purse by the adoption of the proposed 
 scheme for the compensation of Registrars a clear profit, at least 
 after the first year. 
 
 X. 
 
 CONCLUSION.— MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 The general constitution and course of procedure which 
 is suggested for the Local Courts of the future, has now, however 
 rudely and imperfectly, been sketched out, but there remain 
 a few matters to be considered. 
 
 These may be dealt with in alphabetical order, and are 
 as follows : — 
 
 Appeals. — The allowance of these should be regulated, not by 
 the amount in dispute, but by the readiness of the appellant 
 to find security to indemnify the respondent against all possible 
 costs, loss, and delay in the event of affirmance, and also to pay 
 such further sum to the respondent in the like event by way 
 of damages as a Judge of the Court of Appeal should think fit. 
 Leave to appeal should in all cases have to be asked for. It 
 should be granted as of course, if the conditions required are 
 complied with. The Judge granting leave should be at liberty 
 to relax any of the conditions as to security to such an extent as 
 might be necessary in every case to serve the ends of justice, or 
 he should have power, if he thought fit, instead of imposing
 
 65 
 
 these conditions, to order that the appellant, before prosecuting 
 his appeal, pay any sum of money in lieu or partly in lieu of 
 security, into Court, or pay money in the same way to the 
 respondent upon his giving counter-security to refund it in case 
 of a reversal ; or that any chattel in dispute should be preserved 
 in safe custody pending the appeal, or delivered to one of the 
 parties, with or without security to produce it when required. 
 
 The power to impose these conditions should be given only 
 to the Court of Appeal or a Judge thereof, to be exercised by 
 him personally, and not to be delegated to a Master. In no 
 case should the Judge of the Court appealed from have any 
 voice in determining whether or on what conditions an appeal 
 should be allowed. The present system of allowing an appeal, 
 as of right, in all cases over ^20, and in cases under £20 with 
 the leave of the Inferior Court, is, it is submitted, vicious in 
 both respects. In the first set of cases, it puts it into the power 
 of a wealthy or obstinate litigant to appeal vexatiously, for the 
 security he has to give, and the costs allowed on taxation to the 
 successful respondent, never, it is believed, amount to a complete 
 indemnity. In the second, it imposes an undue burden on the 
 conscience of a scrupulous Inferior Judge, who may have great 
 difficulty in deciding whether the balance of advantage to the 
 public in having a doubtful point of law authoritatively settled, 
 outweighs the duty of preventing the parties from wasting a 
 large sum in costs, in litigating a question of small pecuniary 
 importance ; and on the other hand it enables a less scrupulous 
 Inferior Judge to refuse leave to appeal for fear of his decision 
 being reversed. 
 
 Commitment for Contempt. — The power of the Principal Local 
 Court to punish contempts should not be limited by any statute, 
 but the Court should have all such powers as are at common 
 law incident to an Inferior Court of Eecord, with this addition, 
 that it should be specially armed with the necessary powers for 
 the enforcement of its decrees and orders and the protection 
 of its officers from obstruction, and the special powers 
 thus conferred should be in addition to and not in derogation 
 of its common law powers. 
 
 In case of any serious contempt, such as a Kbel on the Judge 
 in his office, or the like, not committed in facie curies, it should 
 be the duty of the Eegistrar to report the case to the Attorney 
 General, who should, if the offence be sufficiently serious, file a 
 criminal information ex-oficio. 
 
 It should be competent to the Principal Local Court, on the 
 motion of either party, to prohibit the publication of its pro- 
 ceedings pending a trial.
 
 66 
 
 Costs and Fees. — If the jurisdiction of the Principal Local 
 Courts is to be enlarged iu pecuniary amount, it will be neces- 
 sary to increase in proper cases the scale of professional 
 allowances, but no alteration of substance is suggested as to the 
 costs. 
 
 The Court fees should be levied by way of poundage or 
 percentage, and this method of levy should be applied as far 
 as possible to all descriptions of cases, and should be, as far as 
 circumstances will allow, uniform. 
 
 The poundage should be so calculated as to increase con- 
 tinually with the value of the matter in dispute and should not, 
 as at present, cease to increase when this value exceeds a certain 
 limit. The ratio of the poundage to this value need however, 
 be constant, but the former might decrease as the latter increases 
 in the same manner as is usual in the case of an agent's 
 commission. 
 
 It is believed that this practice would, of itself, much more 
 satisfactorily than any fixed limit of pecuniary amount, define 
 the line of demarcation between the Superior and Inferior 
 Courts. At a certain point varying in various cases with the 
 nature of the dispute, and the class and residence of the wit- 
 nesses to be called, the expense of suing in the Inferior Court 
 would exceed that of suing in the Superior Court. In all cases 
 in which the defendant could show that a suit begun in the 
 Inferior would be more cheaply or satisfactorily determined in 
 the Superior Court, or vice versa, he should be entitled, as of 
 right, to the transfer, without the conditions mentioned above, 
 (see p. 22). 
 
 No alteration is suggested in the amount of poundage or per- 
 centage to be levied by way of Court fees in litigious cases, but 
 it is suggested that the amount levied should either be divided 
 equally between entry and hearing, or that the heavier fee should 
 be on the entry. Thus Is. 6d. in the £ might be demanded for 
 entry and Is. 6d. for hearing, or 2s. for entry and Is. for hearing. 
 The object of this alteration, as will be readily seen, is to force 
 parties, when there is no question in dispute, to settle their cases 
 by admission, and not to enter them as litigious. It has been 
 already pointed out that plaintifis resorting to actual litigation 
 unnecessarily should be deprived of the costs occasioned by their 
 unnecessary acts. 
 
 The costs of postage incurred in the course of a cause, should 
 be added to the judgment, and be a first charge on all moneys 
 recovered. 
 
 No observations have been made ^dth reference to the fees in 
 Bankruptcy, Admiralty, and cases in which the Court has
 
 67 
 
 jurisdiction under 29 and 30 Vict., c. 99, — as to the first, because 
 the author is not in the possession of sufficient information on 
 the subject, — as to the second, because they would in substance 
 not be affected, the only Admiralty Courts on which fees are 
 separately received proposed to be absorbed being Dover and 
 Eamsgate, and Poole, the fees in which amounted altogether in 
 1872 to £31 only for Court fund, Kegistrar, and High Bailiff 
 together, and as to the third, because the amount received in the 
 year 1872 was insignificant, and because it is suggested that the 
 fees in future should be uniform. 
 
 Jurisdiction. — It has already been suggested that this should, 
 subject to powers of transfer, be unlimited as to pecuniary 
 amount. The exclusion of certain forms of action, such as 
 breach of promise of marriage, libel, &c., from the County Court, 
 is, it is believed, a wise discouragement to litigation, but it is 
 suggested that the new Principal Local Court should have a 
 jurisdiction to assign dower and free bench. Under the new 
 Judicature Act all distinctions of practice between the assign- 
 ment of dower in equity and at common law will, it is conceived, 
 be done away with. Estates of large value are very seldom, 
 especially since the Dower Act, the subject of claims to dower, 
 whereas it is not unlikely that rights to dower and free bench 
 may frequently exist unbarred in small freehold and copyhold 
 properties. It seems only just that the widow's remedy in these 
 cases should be cheap and simple. 
 
 The Courts have been armed with powers by the new rules to 
 make orders for the protection of destructible chattels pending 
 litigation, and for compelling their delivery in specie to the party 
 entitled. This is a most valuable power and should be extended 
 to the utmost. The machinery provided by the old action of 
 replevin might be utilised for this purpose. See Consolidated Order, 
 xi., 1, 2. 
 
 Printing. — It is suggested that in order to avoid as far as 
 possible clerical errors in copying, especially in the letters and 
 numbers by which the proceedings are to be identified, every 
 Eegistrar's office should be furnished with a small hand press, at 
 the cost of about £1. The type necessary for the particular pur- 
 poses required would not cost more than from £1 to 30s. more, and 
 it would be very advisable that whenever copies of a line or a few 
 lines of matter have to be multiplied, it should be done by 
 printing. The main printing of the forms of proceeding would, 
 of course, as heretofore, be done by a tradesman, and the auxiliary 
 printing suggested used only to fill up blanks. In order further 
 to avoid the risk of mis-numbering the proceedings, it would be 
 advisable that the ready printed forms furnished to the office
 
 68 
 
 should be in complete sets ready numbered, and with the name 
 of the Court left in blank. Of&ces having an excess of any one 
 form could easily exchange with others, so as to prevent waste, 
 and the whole efficiency of the suggested use of the Post Office 
 depends upon the accuracy and legibility with which the letters 
 and numbers by which the proceedings are to be identified, are 
 marked thereon. 
 
 Salaries and Travelling Expenses. — It will have been noticed 
 that in the calculations of the expense of replacing the existing 
 Judges, no notice has been taken of the fact that certain salaries 
 now paid amount to £1,800 per annum apiece. The existence 
 of these, though it affects the cost of the existing system to the 
 country, would not affect the proportion which the cost of the 
 new system suggested would bear to it. It is not therefore 
 thought necessary further to refer to this subject. 
 
 With regard to the travelling expenses, it is conceived that 
 these would not be materially affected during the transition 
 period. The Eegistrars acting as Travelling Judges being allowed 
 to hold as many Courts in the day as they like, would however 
 eventually visit all the places now visited, at a less expense than 
 is incurred at present, while the Principal Local Judges would 
 have less locomotion. The comfort of the latter would be con- 
 sulted, and economy effected, if suitable permanent lodgings 
 were provided for them at every town at which they would have 
 to spend one or more night or nights per month. In Assize 
 towns there would, there is every reason to believe, be no diffi- 
 culty in effecting an arrangement with the Local Authority for 
 the use of the necessary apartments in the Judges' Lodgings at 
 a moderate rent. In the manufacturing Principal Local Court 
 towns, (and this would include almost all the Court towns in 
 which the Assizes are not now holden), there is almost invariably 
 (it is believed) a Court House, with a convenient private room. 
 In some of these buildings there might already be rooms 
 which could be utilized for bed and sitting rooms, but if there 
 are not, the interest on the expense of adding and furnishing 
 two such apartments, would, unless there were special architec- 
 tural difficulties in the situation, be much less than the cost of 
 providing the Judge with rooms at an Hotel, three or four days 
 in succession eleven times a year. With regard to attendance, 
 it might be the duty of the High Bailiff to provide this, the 
 expenses being provided for in his allowances. He would 
 probably employ one of his married sub-bailiffs and wife for the 
 purpose. 
 
 Conclusion. — The Author's task is now concluded. That, 
 (even if the principle of any of his suggestions is admitted to
 
 69 
 
 be sound, upon which he cannot but feel very diffident) there 
 must be numerous defects and omissions in the details of the 
 matters touched on, which will be apparent to the critic, he can- 
 not doubt. In particular he must crave indulgence in respect 
 of arithmetical errors in his tables and calculations. He has 
 used his best endeavours to discover and correct them, but in the 
 multitude of addition, subtraction, and rule of three sums which 
 it has been necessary to work in the compilation, mistakes 
 must occur, and may be numerous. 
 
 With respect to the main heads of his suggested reforms, he 
 cannot but feel also, that in venturing, with limited information, 
 an opinion on a subject which has engaged the attention of a 
 Eoyal Commission empowered to examine witnesses, and com- 
 prising the highest legal authorities in the land, he is taking a 
 bold step, and he feels especially that in his suggestions for the 
 new form of procedure he has travelled so far out of the beaten 
 track of precedent, that the very novelty of his proposals will 
 arm against them a criticism which he cannot but feel would 
 have been, independently of this novelty, formidable enough. 
 He has however been actuated throughout by the desire (how- 
 ever unsuccessfully carried into effect), of suggesting whatever 
 appeared to his lights conducive to efficiency and economy in the 
 administration of the Local Inferior Courts of Justice. If any 
 of his observations should, to any extent, however small, lead to 
 the promotion of this object, he will feel that his labours have 
 not been thrown away.
 
 70 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 Table showing the amount applicable to the maintenance of the establishment 
 of every Court iipon Circuit 22, as it existed in 1872, based on the returns 
 to Parliament for that year. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 
 Plaints 
 
 entered 
 
 1872. 
 
 Amoimt 
 
 re- 
 covered 
 
 Total 
 
 Fees 
 
 from all 
 
 sources. 
 
 Appor- 
 tioned 
 share of 
 Judge's 
 Salary. 
 
 Regis- 
 trar's 
 Salary 
 on lower 
 scale. 
 
 Balance 
 applica- 
 ble to 
 mainten- 
 ance of 
 estab- 
 lishment 
 -for- 
 
 Alcester 
 
 419 
 835 
 
 2,008 
 558 
 866 
 704 
 
 2,784 
 490 
 975 
 
 1,099 
 335 
 362 
 715 
 560 
 874 
 
 £ 
 
 455 
 
 857 
 
 2,597 
 678 
 577 
 
 1,044 
 
 2,564 
 584 
 1919 
 
 1,205 
 520 
 425 
 901 
 461 
 924 
 
 £ 
 
 137 
 
 259 
 
 799 
 
 195 
 
 308 
 
 286 
 
 886 
 
 163 
 
 284 
 
 343 
 
 121 
 
 112 
 
 241 
 
 136 
 
 241 
 
 £ 
 64-44 
 116-5 
 116-5 
 116-5 
 129-3 
 116-5 
 116-5 
 64-44 
 64-44 
 116-5 
 64-44 
 64-44 
 116-5 
 116-5 
 116-5 
 
 £ 
 135-04 
 201-6 
 389.28 
 157-28 
 206-56 
 180-64 
 513-44 
 146-4 
 224 
 243-84 
 121-6 
 125-92 
 182-4 
 157.6 
 207-84 
 
 £ 
 —62-48 
 —59-1 
 
 -|-293'22 
 —78-78 
 —27-86 
 -11-14 
 
 -I-256-06 
 —47-84 
 —4-44 
 —17-34 
 —65-04 
 -78-36 
 —67-9 
 
 —138-1 
 —83-34 
 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Daventry 
 
 Evesham 
 
 Kettering 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Pershore 
 
 Redditch 
 
 Rugby 
 
 Solihull 
 
 Southam 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon. . 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Wellingborough .... 
 
 Total 
 
 13,584 
 
 14,711 
 
 4,511 
 
 1,500 
 
 3,225-44 
 
 —181-72
 
 71 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Table showing the number of hours during which the Judge of Circuit 22 
 was detained from his home or place of sleeping for the night, on every 
 County Court Day during the year 1874, distinguishing between the time 
 occupied in business, and that occupied in travelling or waiting.* 
 
 JANUARY CIRCUIT. 
 
 
 
 Hour of 
 
 Hour of 
 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 
 
 
 leaving 
 
 arriving 
 
 Time 
 
 
 
 Day 
 
 place 
 
 at 
 
 occupied 
 
 Total 
 
 Court. 
 
 of the 
 
 where 
 
 sleeping 
 
 m 
 
 travel- 
 ling or 
 
 time 
 
 
 Month 
 
 previous 
 
 place 
 
 holding 
 
 occupied 
 
 
 
 night 
 
 for the 
 
 Court. 
 
 
 
 
 passed. 
 
 night. 
 
 
 waiting. 
 
 
 
 
 A.M. 
 
 P.M. 
 
 H. M. 
 
 H. M. 
 
 H. M. 
 
 Towcester 
 
 12 
 13 
 
 6.20 
 9.0 
 
 6.0 
 8.30 
 
 45 
 9 
 
 10 55 
 
 2 30 
 
 11 40 
 11 30 
 
 Wellingborough 
 
 Northampton 
 
 14 
 
 10.0 
 
 4.45 
 
 6 45 
 
 — 
 
 6 45 
 
 Kettering 
 
 15 
 16 
 19 
 
 9.0 
 
 7.0 
 
 11.15 
 
 6.0 
 5.0 
 7.15 
 
 1 30 
 30 
 
 2 40 
 
 7 30 
 9 30 
 5 20 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 Daventry 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon 
 
 Coventry 
 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 
 6.20 
 9.30 
 6.20 
 
 10.30 
 6.30 
 6.45 
 
 11 
 1 30 
 1 
 
 5 10 
 
 7 30 
 
 11 25 
 
 16 10 
 
 9 
 
 12 25 
 
 Southam 
 
 Rugby 
 
 Evesham 
 
 23 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 
 8.40 
 
 9.0 
 
 8.15 
 
 8.15 
 
 9.30 
 
 8.40 
 
 7.30 
 
 4.45 
 
 6.15 
 
 40 
 
 3.15 
 
 6.40 
 
 5 30 
 
 2 30 
 
 3 45 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 1 30 
 
 6 20 
 
 5 15 
 
 6 15 
 4 45 
 3 45 
 8 30 
 
 11 50 
 7 45 
 
 10 
 5 45 
 5 45 
 
 10 
 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 Redditch 
 
 Alcester 
 
 Pershore 
 
 Solihull 
 
 
 
 No. of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Days. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 15 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 50 55 
 
 94 40 
 
 145 35 
 
 * \Vith respect to the remarks at p. 15 (ante,) it should be added that the Judge almost 
 invariably slept at Northampton or at other places in the County during the holding of his North- 
 amptonshire Courts, and that the time thus lost, whether spent at inns or friends' houses, is not 
 taken account of in colunm 5. The interchanges with Messrs. Kettle and Martineau were for 
 mutual convenience, and lessened the amount of travelling, &c.
 
 72 
 
 FEBRUAKY CIRCUIT. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Wellingborough . . . 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Kettering 
 
 Daventry 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon . 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Bromyard 
 
 (For Mr. Kettle.) 
 
 Tenbuiy 
 
 (For Mr. Kettle.) 
 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 Evesham 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Rugby 
 
 Total 
 
 Day 
 
 of the 
 Month 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 9 
 11 
 13 
 
 U 
 
 16 
 20 
 25 
 26 
 
 No. of 
 
 Days. 
 
 13 
 
 Hour of 
 
 leaving 
 place 
 where 
 
 previous 
 night 
 
 passed. 
 
 A.M. 
 
 5.40 
 8.40 
 
 10.0 
 9.0 
 9.30 
 
 10.20 
 6.20 
 
 ll.O 
 
 9.0 
 
 9.0 
 8.40 
 8.30 
 9.40 
 
 Hour of 
 arri-\dng 
 
 at 
 sleeping 
 
 place 
 for the 
 
 night. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 in 
 holding 
 Com-t. 
 
 P.M. 
 
 7.20 
 6.0 
 1.0 
 7.30 
 6.40 
 7.20 
 10.40 
 3.0 
 
 3.0 
 
 3.20 
 1.40 
 4.0 
 5.40 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 in 
 travel- 
 ling or 
 waiting;. 
 
 H. M. 
 
 5 
 
 1 30 
 3 
 3 
 
 2 15 
 
 3 
 6 
 2 30 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 1 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 34 20 
 
 Total 
 
 time 
 
 occupied 
 
 H. M. 
 
 13 35 
 
 7 50 
 
 7 30 
 
 6 55 
 
 6 
 
 10 20 
 
 1 30 
 
 4 
 
 4 20 
 
 4 
 
 2 30 
 
 5 
 
 73 30 
 
 H. M. 
 
 13 40 
 9 20 
 
 3 
 10 30 
 
 9 10 
 
 9 
 
 16 20 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 20 
 
 5 
 
 7 30 
 
 8 
 
 107 50 
 
 MARCH CIRCUIT. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Day 
 
 of the 
 Month 
 
 Hour of 
 leaving 
 place 
 where 
 
 previous 
 night 
 
 passed. 
 
 Hour of 
 
 arriving 
 
 at 
 
 sleeping 
 
 _ place 
 
 for the 
 
 night. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 in 
 holding 
 
 Court. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 in 
 travel- 
 ling or 
 waiting. 
 
 Total 
 
 Time 
 
 occupied 
 
 Pershore 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 
 a.m. 
 9.0 
 8.40 
 
 11.15 
 6.20 
 9.30 
 6.20 
 8.40 
 9.0 
 8.10 
 8.10 
 8.25 
 7.0 
 5 40 
 9.30 
 
 10.0 
 
 P.M. 
 
 6.30 
 7.20 
 7.20 
 9.0 
 6.40 
 4.40 
 7.20 
 3.10 
 5.0 
 7.30 
 7.30 
 6.40 
 6.0 
 7.45 
 11.30 
 
 H. M. 
 1 
 
 3 
 1 
 9 
 
 1 
 30 
 6 
 
 30 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 6 30 
 
 2 15 
 
 4 
 8 
 
 7 30 
 
 H. M. 
 
 8 30 
 7 40 
 
 7 5 
 5 40 
 
 8 10 
 
 9 50 
 5 40 
 
 5 40 
 
 6 50 
 10 20 
 
 4 3-3 
 9 2) 
 8 20 
 2 15 
 6 
 
 H. M. 
 
 9 30 
 10 40 
 
 8 5 
 14 40 
 
 9 10 
 
 10 20 
 
 11 40 
 6 10 
 8 50 
 
 11 20 
 11 5 
 
 11 40 
 
 12 20 
 10 15 
 
 13 30 
 
 Solihull 
 
 Stratford-oh-Avon 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Southam 
 
 Rugbv 
 
 
 Bromsgrove , 
 
 Redditch 
 
 Alcester 
 
 
 Daventry; 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Wellingborough 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Total 
 
 No. of 
 
 Davs. 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 53 15 
 
 106 
 
 159 15
 
 73 
 
 APKIL CIRCUIT. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Day 
 
 of the 
 Month 
 
 Hour of 
 leaving 
 
 place 
 
 where 
 
 previous 
 
 night 
 passed. 
 
 Hour of 
 arriving 
 
 at 
 
 sleeping 
 
 place 
 
 for the 
 
 night. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 ill 
 holding 
 Court. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 in 
 travel- 
 ling or 
 waiting. 
 
 Total 
 
 time 
 
 occupied 
 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 6 
 9 
 
 10 
 13 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 20 
 22 
 
 A.M. 
 
 9.0 
 8.25 
 7.0 
 11.15 
 6.20 
 9.40 
 8.40 
 5.40 
 7.40 
 
 P.M. 
 
 3.30 
 5.0 
 4.40 
 7.20 
 7.30 
 4.40 
 2.0 
 7.40 
 10.20 
 
 H. M. 
 
 2 30 
 1 30 
 1 
 
 1 
 9 
 
 2 30 
 1 15 
 40 
 7 30 
 
 jr. M. 
 4 
 
 7 5 
 
 8 40 
 7 5 
 4 10 
 4 30 
 4 5 
 
 13 20 
 7 10 
 
 H. M. 
 
 6 30 
 
 8 35 
 
 9 40 
 8 5 
 
 13 10 
 
 7 
 5 20 
 
 14 
 14 40 
 
 Kettering 
 
 Daventry 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon .... 
 Coventry 
 
 Rugby 
 
 Evesham 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Walsall 
 
 (For Mr. Martineau.) 
 
 Total 
 
 No. of 
 
 Days. 
 
 9 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 26 55 
 
 60 5 
 
 87 
 
 MAY CIRCUIT. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Day 
 
 of the 
 Month 
 
 Hour of 
 
 leaving 
 place 
 where 
 
 previous 
 night 
 
 passed. 
 
 Hour of 
 arriving 
 
 at 
 sleeping 
 
 place 
 for the 
 
 night. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 in 
 holding 
 Court. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 in 
 travel- 
 ling or 
 waiting. 
 
 Total 
 
 time 
 
 occupied 
 
 Southam 
 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 
 A.M. 
 
 5.40 
 6.20 
 8.40 
 8.40 
 8.40 
 8.40 
 
 10.20 
 8.40 
 8.40 
 9.15 
 
 10.0 
 9.0 
 
 P.M. 
 
 6.40 
 
 6.40 
 
 3.20 
 
 7.30 
 
 6.0 
 
 3.20 
 
 3.20 
 
 7.30 
 
 6.0 
 
 7.0 
 
 9.30 
 
 7.30 
 
 H. M. 
 
 1 30 
 
 2 45 
 2 
 4 30 
 4 30 
 1 15 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 7 20 
 
 11 30 
 
 3 45 
 
 H. M. 
 
 11 30 
 9 35 
 4 40 
 
 6 20 
 
 4 50 
 
 5 25 
 4 
 9 50 
 
 7 20 
 2 25 
 
 6 45 
 
 H. M. 
 
 13 
 12 20 
 6 40 
 10 50 
 9 20 
 6 40 
 5 
 
 10 50 
 9 20 
 9 45 
 
 11 30 
 10 30 
 
 Rugbv 
 
 Evesham 
 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 Redditch 
 
 Alcester 
 
 Pershore 
 
 Solihull 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Wellingborough 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Ditto, 2nd day 
 
 Total 
 
 No. of 
 
 Days. 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 43 5 
 
 72 40 
 
 115 45
 
 74 
 
 JUNE CIRCUIT. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Day 
 
 of the 
 Month 
 
 Hour of 
 
 leaving 
 place 
 where 
 
 previous 
 night 
 
 passed 
 
 Hour of 
 arriving 
 
 at 
 sleeping 
 
 place 
 for the 
 
 night. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 in 
 holding 
 Court. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 in 
 travel- 
 ling or 
 waiting. 
 
 Total 
 
 time 
 
 occupied 
 
 Stratford- on- A von 
 
 Evesham 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Wellingborough 
 
 Rugby and adjourned 
 
 Kettering 
 
 Daventry 
 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Ditto, 2nd day 
 
 12 
 15 
 16 
 
 18 
 19 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 
 A.M. 
 
 11.15 
 8.40 
 8.40 
 9.20 
 
 8.30 
 8.30 
 8.40 
 6.20 
 10.0 
 9.0 
 
 P.M. 
 
 7.20 
 3.20 
 6.0 
 7.30 
 
 8.0 
 
 6.0 
 
 3.20 
 
 8.0 
 
 7.0 
 
 7.20 
 
 H. M, 
 
 30 
 2 30 
 15 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 30 
 
 1 30 
 
 7 15 
 9 
 4 15 
 
 H. M. 
 
 7 35 
 4 10 
 9 5 
 
 8 20 
 
 6 5 
 
 H. M. 
 
 8 5 
 6 40 
 
 9 20 
 
 10 20 
 
 11 30 
 9 30 
 6 40 
 
 13 40 
 
 9 
 
 10 20 
 
 Total 
 
 No. of 
 
 Davs. 
 
 10 
 
 33 45 
 
 61 20 
 
 95 5 
 
 JULY CIRCUIT. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Day 
 
 of the 
 Month 
 
 Hour of 
 leaving 
 place 
 where 
 previous 
 night 
 passed. 
 
 Hour of 
 arriving 
 
 at 
 
 'sleeping 
 
 place 
 
 for the 
 
 night. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 in 
 holding 
 Court. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 in 
 travel- 
 ling or 
 waiting. 
 
 Total 
 
 time 
 
 occupied 
 
 Pershore 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 A.M. 
 
 8.40 
 8.40 
 
 11.15 
 8.10 
 8.40 
 5.40 
 8.40 
 8.40 
 8.15 
 8.30 
 6.20 
 6.20 
 8.40 
 6.20 
 
 10.0 
 7.15 
 
 8.40 
 
 P.M. 
 
 3.20 
 7.20 
 7.20 
 5.0 
 3.20 
 6.40 
 7.0 
 7.0 
 6.0 
 11.30 
 7.20 
 6.40 
 5.30 
 8.35 
 7.0 
 6.0 
 
 7.20 
 
 H. M. 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 15 
 
 2 
 
 30 
 
 1 30 
 
 3 
 
 4 30 
 
 2 30 
 
 6 20 
 4 
 5 
 
 3 30 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 4 30 
 
 8 
 
 H. M. 
 
 4 40 
 
 5 40 
 7 60 
 
 6 50 
 
 6 10 
 
 11 30 
 
 7 20 
 5 50 
 
 7 15 
 
 8 40 
 
 9 
 
 12 15 
 
 5 20 
 
 6 15 
 
 6 15 
 2 40 
 
 H. M. 
 
 6 40 
 
 10 40 
 
 8 5 
 
 8 50 
 6 40 
 
 13 
 10 20 
 10 20 
 
 9 45 
 15 
 
 13 
 12 20 
 
 8 50 
 
 14 15 
 
 9 
 10 45 
 
 10 40 
 
 Evesham 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon 
 
 Redditch 
 
 
 Southam 
 
 Solihull... 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Wellingborough 
 
 Ruo'bv 
 
 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Northampton 
 
 W^orcester 
 
 (For Mr. Kettle) 
 Ditto, 2nd day 
 
 Total 
 
 No. of 
 
 Days, 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 64 40 
 
 113 30 
 
 178 10 
 
 AUGUST— Vacation Month.
 
 75 
 
 SEPTEMBER CIRCUIT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Court. 
 
 Day 
 
 of the 
 Month 
 
 Hour of 
 
 leaving 
 place 
 where 
 
 previous 
 night 
 
 passed. 
 
 Hour of 
 arriving 
 
 at 
 sleeping 
 
 place 
 for the 
 
 night. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 in 
 holding 
 Court. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 in 
 travel- 
 ling or 
 waiting. 
 
 Total 
 
 time 
 
 occupied 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon .... 
 Pershore 
 
 7 
 10 
 11 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 18 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 29 
 30 
 
 Oct. 1 
 
 A.M. 
 
 11.15 
 8.40 
 8.40 
 8.40 
 
 NOON. 
 
 12.0 
 
 A.M. 
 
 9.0 
 
 7.30 
 
 8.45 
 
 8.40 
 
 8.40 
 
 8.40 
 
 5.40 
 
 8.40 
 
 6.20 
 
 8.0 
 
 7.15 
 
 P.M. 
 
 7.20 
 7.30 
 3.20 
 5 30 
 
 7.0 
 
 6.0 
 
 2.30 
 
 7.20 
 
 9.0 
 
 7.40 
 
 7.40 
 
 7.20 
 
 7.10 
 
 7.0 
 
 7.0 
 
 NOON. 
 
 12.30 
 
 H. M. 
 
 1 
 
 7 30 
 
 2 30 
 
 1 45 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 3 30 
 
 2 30 
 
 6 
 5 
 5 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 7 30 
 
 H. M. 
 
 7 5 
 
 3 20 
 
 4 10 
 
 7 5 
 
 2 
 
 3 30 
 
 8 5 
 6 20 
 6 
 
 6 
 10 40 
 
 7 30 
 
 4 40 
 3 30 
 
 5 15 
 
 H. M. 
 
 8 6 
 10 50 
 
 6 40 
 
 8 50 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 7 
 
 10 35 
 
 12 20 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 13 40 
 
 10 30 
 
 12 40 
 
 11 
 
 5 15 
 
 Evesham 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Wellingborough 
 
 Kettering 
 
 Rugbv 
 
 Daventry 
 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 Redditch 
 
 Alcester 
 
 Southam 
 
 Solihull 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Ditto and Northampton 
 Northampton 
 
 Total 
 
 No. of 
 
 Days. 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 70 15 
 
 85 10 
 
 155 25 
 
 OCTOBER CIRCUIT. 
 
 Coiirt. 
 
 Day 
 
 of the 
 Month 
 
 Hour of 
 
 leaving 
 place 
 where 
 
 previous 
 night 
 
 passed. 
 
 Hour of 
 arriving 
 
 at 
 sleeping 
 
 place 
 for the 
 
 nisrht. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 in 
 holding 
 Court. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 in 
 travel- 
 ling or 
 waiting. 
 
 Total 
 
 time 
 
 occupied 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Wellingborough . . 
 
 Kettering 
 
 Rugby 
 
 Daventry 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon 
 
 Ditto, 2nd day 
 
 Evesham 
 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Northampton . . . . 
 
 Ditto, 2nd day . . . . 
 Total .... 
 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 23 
 27 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 A.M. 
 
 8.40 
 
 11.30 
 
 10.25 
 
 7.50 
 
 6.40 
 
 11.15 
 
 8.30 
 
 8.40 
 
 8.40 
 
 6.20 
 
 10.0 
 
 7.15 
 
 P.M. 
 
 9.0 
 1.15 
 6.30 
 7.20 
 4.40 
 2.0 
 11.0 
 3.20 
 7.40 
 8.20 
 6.0 
 
 NOON. 
 
 12.15 
 
 a. M 
 
 4 30 
 
 1 45 
 7 
 3 
 5 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 5 30 
 
 7 30 
 
 8 
 
 M. 
 
 50 
 
 1 5 
 8 30 
 
 10 55 
 
 2 35 
 
 5 
 
 H. M. 
 
 12 20 
 
 1 45 
 8 5 
 
 11 30 
 11 
 
 2 45 
 2 30 
 6 40 
 
 11 
 
 14 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 No. of 
 
 Days. 
 
 12 
 
 — 39 30 I 55 6 94 36
 
 76 
 
 NOVEMBER CIRCUIT. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Day 
 
 of the 
 Month 
 
 Hour of 
 
 leaving 
 place 
 where 
 previous 
 night 
 passed. 
 
 Hour of 
 arriving 
 
 at 
 
 sleeping 
 
 place 
 
 for the 
 
 night. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 in 
 holding 
 
 Court. 
 
 Time 
 
 occupied 
 
 in 
 
 travel- 
 
 Img or 
 
 waiting. 
 
 Total 
 
 time 
 
 occupied 
 
 Rugbv 
 
 6 
 6 
 9 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 
 A.M. 
 
 8,55 
 7.40 
 5.40 
 8.55 
 8.0 
 8.55 
 8.55 
 8.55 
 8.40 
 8.55 
 8.55 
 8.55 
 7.30 
 10.0 
 6.50 
 
 P.M. 
 
 6.0 
 
 7.20 
 11.0 
 7.0 
 6.40 
 7.20 
 3.20 
 5.0 
 4.40 
 7.20 
 3.20 
 3.20 
 8.0 
 12.20 
 9.30 
 
 H. M. 
 
 4 30 
 
 2 
 
 4 30 
 7 
 30 
 45 
 15 
 
 3 45 
 3 40 
 
 5 30 
 2 30 
 2 
 7 30 
 9 
 
 H. M. 
 
 3 35 
 
 9 40 
 
 12 50 
 
 3 5 
 10 10 
 
 9 40 
 6 10 
 
 4 20 
 4 20 
 4 55 
 
 3 55 
 
 4 25 
 
 5 
 5 20 
 2 40 
 
 H. M. 
 
 8 5 
 
 11 40 
 17 20 
 10 5 
 10 40 
 10 25 
 
 6 25 
 8 5 
 8 
 10 25 
 6 25 
 6 25 
 
 12 30 
 14 20 
 
 2 40 
 
 Daventry 
 
 To wcester 
 
 Alcester 
 
 Southam 
 
 Solihull 
 
 Shipston-on-Stour .... 
 
 Redditch 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon .... 
 Pershore 
 
 Evesham 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Ditto 2nd day 
 
 Total 
 
 No. of 
 
 Days. 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 53 25 
 
 90 5 
 
 143 30 
 
 DECEMBER CIRCUIT. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Day 
 
 of the 
 Month 
 
 Hour of 
 
 leaving 
 place 
 where 
 
 previous 
 night 
 
 passed 
 
 Hour of 
 arriving 
 
 at 
 
 sleeping 
 
 place 
 
 for the 
 
 night. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 
 in 
 holding 
 
 Court. 
 
 Time 
 occupied 
 in 
 travel- 
 ling or 
 waiting. 
 
 Total 
 
 time 
 
 occupied 
 
 Wellingborough . . 
 
 Kettering 
 
 Rugby 
 
 Daventry 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon 
 Shipston-on- Stour 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Northampton . . . . 
 Ditto (2nd day) . . 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 Total .... 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 21 
 
 A.M. 
 
 6.20 
 9.0 
 8.55 
 7.40 
 
 11.15 
 8.55 
 8.55 
 8.30 
 
 10.0 
 8.0 
 8.30 
 
 P.M. 
 
 5.0 
 
 7.20 
 5.0 
 4.40 
 7.20 
 7.20 
 7.30 
 6.45 
 7.0 
 10.30 
 7.20 
 
 M. 
 
 30 
 
 
 30 
 
 5 
 45 
 
 
 45 
 
 
 
 
 
 H. 
 
 M. 
 
 6 10 
 
 7 20 
 
 4 35 
 
 8 55 
 
 6 20 
 
 7 25 
 
 8 50 
 
 5 15 
 
 3 45 
 
 No. of 
 
 Days 
 
 11 
 
 H. 
 
 M. 
 
 10 40 
 10 20 
 
 8 6 
 
 9 
 
 8 6 
 10 25 
 10 35 
 10 15 
 
 9 
 2 30 
 
 10 50 
 
 35 20 
 
 64 25 
 
 99 45
 
 77 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 
 No. of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 days 
 
 Time 
 
 
 Time 
 
 
 
 
 occupied 
 
 occupied 
 
 
 occupied 
 
 
 Total 
 
 Month.. 
 
 in sitting 
 
 in 
 
 Average 
 
 m 
 
 Average 
 
 time 
 
 
 or 
 
 holding 
 
 per day. 
 
 travel- 
 
 per day. 
 
 occupied 
 
 
 travel- 
 
 Court. 
 
 
 ling or 
 
 
 
 
 ling. 
 
 
 
 waiting. 
 
 
 
 
 
 H. M. 
 
 H. M. 
 
 H. M. 
 
 H. M. 
 
 H. M. 
 
 January 
 
 15 
 
 50 55 
 
 3 24 
 
 94 40 
 
 6 19 
 
 145 35 
 
 February 
 
 13 
 
 34 20 
 
 2 20 
 
 73 30 
 
 5 4 
 
 107 50 
 
 March 
 
 15 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 16 
 
 53 15 
 26 55 
 43 5 
 33 45 
 64 40 
 
 70 15 
 
 3 33 
 3 
 3 6 
 
 3 22 
 
 3 48 
 
 4 23 
 
 106 
 
 60 5 
 72 40 
 
 61 20 
 113 30 
 
 85 10 
 
 7 4 
 6 7 
 6 3 
 6 8 
 6 4 
 
 5 20 
 
 159 15 
 87 
 
 115 45 
 95 5 
 
 178 10 
 
 155 25 
 
 April 
 
 May 
 
 Jmie 
 
 July 
 
 August 
 
 September 
 
 October 
 
 12 
 15 
 
 39 30 
 53 25 
 
 3 17 
 3 36 
 
 55 5 
 90 5 
 
 4 35 
 6 
 
 94 35 
 143 30 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 11 
 
 35 20 
 
 3 12 
 
 64 25 
 
 5 51 
 
 99 45 
 
 
 Total 
 
 145 
 
 505 25 
 
 3 37 
 
 876 30 
 
 6 3 
 
 1,381 55 
 
 If 7 hours is taken as a full day's work, the above would represent 197*47 
 days' of full work. 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 Proposed Scheme for the Redistribution of the Local Business between the 
 suggested Principal Local, and Travelling Courts ; with Tables showing 
 the average amount of business which may be expected in each class of 
 Court, the number of Judges required, and the probable length of time to 
 be occupied in the transaction of the business in each class of Court, 
 
 PREFATORY REMARKS, 
 
 It has been already pointed out, (see ante p. 21,) that it is iatended that the 
 Judgrs of the Principal Local Courts, should distribute the business of 
 thotc Courts amongst themselves so as to take the heavier and lighter 
 districts alternately. Thus in the case of Circuit No. 1, the Principal 
 Local Judge who should take District No. 1, involving the trial of an 
 estimated average of nearly five common law and mixed causes every 
 day of sitting, in January, would take District No. 2, involving an average of 
 two causes every day for the Principal Local Judge, in February, and District 
 No. 3 involving an estimated average of three causes per day for the Principal 
 Local Judge, in March, and so on. The distribution of the business of 
 the Circuits, between the Cotinty Court Judges to whom they are assigned
 
 78 
 
 temporarily as Travelling Judges, might be effected by a subdivision of the 
 jurisdictions between themselves as they might agree. 
 
 It is assumed that every Principal Local Judge will find it necessary to set 
 apart one day out of every sitting for Admiralty Business in Courts which have 
 an Admiralty jiuisdiction, and one other day out of every sitting for the 
 hearing of Bankruptcy cases, judgment summonses, and miscellaneous matters, 
 and the transaction of the business coming under the administrative jurisdic- 
 tion of the Court, but it is not suggested that the Principal Local Judges 
 should be obliged to do this, or that they should be in any way fettered in the 
 disposal of their business, except that they should be under the obligation of 
 giving, if necessary, five consecutive days to every of their Courts per 
 month. The Travelling Courts should be holden at such intervals as 
 the Lord Chancellor, following as a rule the times at which the present County 
 Courts are holden, should prescribe. 
 
 It is not intended that the existing County Court Judges, who during the 
 transition period might be told ofi" to perform the functions of Travelling 
 Judges, should be obliged against their will to interchange Circuits with their 
 fellows, but whenever the practice of interchange is declined, any modification 
 of the proposed distribution, necessary to secure a fair division of labour 
 should be made. 
 
 Tlie Registrar-Travelling Judges should as a rule serve only the Travelling 
 Coi rts comprised in the district of which they are respectively Registrars, but 
 they should have a general jurisdiction in aid of each other similar to that con- 
 ferred on County Court Judges by 30 and 31 Vict., c. 142. 
 
 The method of calculation by which the following tables have been worked 
 out has been already explained in the text. (See p. 26.) 
 
 Since this paper has been in type the Author has been informed that the 
 numbet- of plaints entered in the Birmingham Court has of late increased with 
 unexampled rapidity. This, and any corresponding increase or diminution in 
 the business of other Courts would probably be found on enquiry to relate to 
 cases comprised in Classes I. and II. only, but assvuning the variation to extend 
 to all three classes of cases, the principle of the following tables would not be 
 affected, although in working out the scheme for practical use the details might 
 have to be rearranged. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Covirt. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 • Com- 
 mon 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Newcastle-on-Tyne 
 
 239 
 
 33 
 
 7-2 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 * Here and throughout this Appendix, the heading " Common Law " is to be taken to include 
 mixed causes not involving the exercise of administrative functions.
 
 79 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Alnwick 
 
 158 
 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 51 
 
 1,276 
 
 132 
 
 343 
 
 2,651 
 
 1,111 
 
 25 
 
 31 
 
 6 
 5 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 77 
 
 19 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 31-6 
 1-8 
 
 4 
 
 10-2 
 255-2 
 
 26-4 
 
 68-6 
 530-2 
 222-2 
 
 6 
 6-2 
 
 6-26 
 0-36 
 0-8 
 1-7 
 
 14-17 
 6-6 
 6-23 
 6-88 
 
 11-7 
 1 
 1-03 
 
 97-4 
 
 6-2 
 
 15 
 
 25-8 
 
 1020-8 
 
 87-6 
 
 199-4 
 
 1361-8 
 
 575.8 
 
 24 
 
 22-8 
 
 16-23 
 1-24 
 3 
 
 4-3 
 56-71 
 21.9 
 18-12 
 17-67 
 30-3 
 4.8 
 3-8 
 
 21-49 
 2-6 
 3-8 
 6 
 70-88 
 28-5 
 24-35 
 24-55 
 42 
 5-8 
 4-83 
 
 Belford 
 
 Bellingham 
 
 Berwick 
 
 Gateshead 
 
 Hexham 
 
 Morpeth 
 
 Newcastle 
 
 North Shields 
 
 Rothbury 
 
 Wooler 
 
 
 Total 
 
 5,807 
 
 94 
 
 1,161-4 
 
 — 
 
 3,426-6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 58-07. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 
 ruptcy. 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Durham 
 
 110 
 
 44 
 
 2-5 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 ]872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Bishop Auckland . . 
 Durham 
 
 1,396 
 
 1,841 
 
 1,404 
 
 650 
 
 160 
 
 22 
 24 
 12 
 12 
 7 
 
 279-2 
 368-2 
 280-8 
 130 
 32 
 
 12-7 
 15-35 
 23-4 
 10-86 
 4-57 
 
 700-8 
 
 1123-8 
 
 711-2 
 
 340 
 
 76 
 
 31-85 
 59-32 
 59.26 
 29-16 
 10-85 
 
 44.55 
 74-67 
 82-66 
 40-02 
 15-42 
 
 Hartlepool 
 
 Shotley Bridge 
 
 Wolsingham 
 
 Total 
 
 5,451 
 
 77 
 
 1,090-2 
 
 — 
 
 2,981-8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 54-51.
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 1 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Sunderland 
 
 107 
 
 33 
 
 3-24 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Seaham Harbour . . 
 
 South Shields 
 
 Sunderland 
 
 783 
 1,831 
 3,720 
 
 11 
 
 25 
 50 
 
 156-6 
 366-2 
 744 
 
 14-23 
 14-64 
 14-88 
 
 386-4 
 1,041-8 
 1,739 
 
 35-13 
 41-67 
 34-78 
 
 49-36 
 56-31 
 49-66 
 
 Total 
 
 6,334 
 
 86 
 
 1,266-8 
 
 — 
 
 3,167-2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days reqtiired for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 63 -34. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 1. 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Newcastle-on-Tyne 
 
 Diirham 
 
 239 
 110 
 107 
 
 33 
 44 
 33 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Sunderland 
 
 
 Total 
 
 466 
 
 110 
 
 22 
 
 33
 
 SI 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Newcastle-on-Tyne 
 
 Durham 
 
 11 
 5 
 3 
 
 1,161-4 
 1,090-2 
 1,266-8 
 
 58-07 
 54-51 
 63-34 
 
 £ 
 290-35 
 272-55 
 316-7 
 
 Sunderland 
 
 
 Total 
 
 19 
 
 3,518-4 
 
 175-92 
 
 879-6 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Carlisle 
 
 94 
 
 44 
 
 2.14 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Davs 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Alston 
 
 29 
 97 
 137 
 765 
 46 
 444 
 271 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 5-8 
 19-4 
 27-4 
 153 
 
 9.2 
 88-8 
 54-2 
 
 1-16 
 2-42 
 4-57 
 1-38 
 1-84 
 8.08 
 4-9 
 
 12-2 
 35-6 
 92-6 
 357 
 
 25-8 
 295-2 
 129-8 
 
 2-44 
 4-45 
 15-43 
 32-45 
 5-16 
 26-83 
 11-8 
 
 3-6 
 6-87 
 
 20 
 
 33-83 
 7 
 
 35-91 
 
 16-7 
 
 Applebv 
 
 Brampton 
 
 Carlisle 
 
 Haltwhistle 
 
 Penrith 
 
 Wigton 
 
 
 
 Total ' 1,789 
 
 57 
 
 357-8 
 
 — 
 
 948-2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days reqiiired for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 17'89.
 
 82 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 r^Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 
 1 &c. 
 
 Kirby Kendal 
 
 38 
 
 44 
 
 0-86 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872, 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of vm- 
 defended 
 
 Cases, 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Ambleside 
 
 Kirby Kendal 
 
 Kirby Lonsdale .... 
 
 187 
 688 
 125 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 37-4 
 137.6 
 25 
 
 6-23 
 12-51 
 4-16 
 
 94-6 
 431-4 
 68 
 
 15-77 
 39-2 
 11-34 
 
 22 
 
 51-71 
 
 15-5 
 
 Total 
 
 1,000 
 
 23 
 
 200 
 
 — 
 
 694 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 10. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Whitehaven 
 
 112 
 
 33 
 
 3-4 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Caurt. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Cockermouth 
 
 Keswick 
 
 871 
 
 85 
 
 1466 
 
 1420 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 174-2 
 17 
 293-2 
 284 
 
 15.83 
 2-83 
 26-65 
 25-8 
 
 350-8 
 40 
 663-8 
 791 
 
 31-9 
 6-67 
 60-35 
 71-9 
 
 47-73 
 9-5 
 
 87 
 97-7 
 
 Ulverston 
 
 Whitehaven 
 
 Total 
 
 3,842 
 
 39 
 
 768-4 
 
 — 
 
 1845-6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 38-42.
 
 83 
 
 CIRCITIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 2. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Carlisle 
 
 94 
 
 38 
 
 112 
 
 44 
 44 
 33 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Kirby Kendal 
 
 Whitehaven 
 
 
 Total 
 
 244 
 
 121 
 
 11 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 requii-ed 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 Carlisle 
 
 7 
 3 
 4 
 
 357-8 
 
 200 
 
 768-4 
 
 17-89 
 
 10 
 
 38-42 
 
 £ 
 89'4o 
 50-0 
 192-1 
 
 Kirby Kendal 
 
 Whitehaven 
 
 
 1 
 
 Total 
 
 14 
 
 1,326-2 66-31 
 
 331-55 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Blackburn 172 
 
 44 
 
 3-9 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 Travelluisr Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sittmg 
 
 1872 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Bacup 
 
 1,071 
 
 3,187 
 257 
 677 
 
 12 
 
 48 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 214-2 
 
 637-4 
 
 51-4 
 
 135-4 
 
 17-85 
 
 13-28 
 
 6-42 
 
 11-28 
 
 307-8 
 
 1,471-6 
 
 109-6 
 
 200-6 
 
 25-65 
 30-66 
 13-7 
 16-7 
 
 43-5 
 
 43-94 
 
 20-12 
 
 27-98 
 
 Blackburn 
 
 Clitheroe 
 
 Haslingden, &c 
 
 Total 
 
 5,192 
 
 80 1 1,038-4 
 
 — 
 
 2,089-6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 51-92.
 
 84 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court, 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Bolton 
 
 187 
 
 44 
 
 4-25 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Jxidg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Bolton 
 
 6,263 
 
 2,270 
 
 731 
 
 2,441 
 
 41 
 28 
 16 
 24 
 
 109 
 
 l,2o2-6 
 
 454 
 146-2 
 
 488-2 
 
 30-55 
 16-2 
 9-14 
 20-34 
 
 2,959-4 
 516 
 315-8 
 
 588-8 
 
 72-18 
 18-43 
 19-73 
 24-5 
 
 102-73 
 34-63 
 
 28-87 
 44-84 
 
 Bury 
 
 Chorley 
 
 Rochdale 
 
 
 Total 
 
 11,705 
 
 2,341 
 
 — 
 
 4,380 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 117 "05. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 11 
 
 Bank- 
 
 ruptcy, 
 
 Admm- 
 
 istrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 11 
 
 Preston 
 
 95 33 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg. 
 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age Total 
 per ; Average. 
 
 Day. 
 
 Garstang 
 
 39 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 27 
 
 7-8 
 
 15-4 
 
 87-6 
 
 44-8 
 
 315-2 
 
 0-87 
 1-7 
 5-84 
 3 
 11-7 
 
 26-2 
 
 48-6 
 
 149-4 
 
 137-2 
 
 677-8 
 
 2-9 3-77 
 5-4 7-1 
 
 10 15-84 
 9.14 12-14 
 
 25-1 j 36-8 
 
 Kirkham 
 
 77 
 
 438 
 
 224 
 
 1,576 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 Poulton-le-Fylde . . 
 Preston 
 
 
 
 Total 2,354 
 
 75 
 
 470-8 
 
 — 
 
 1,039-2 
 
 1 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling 
 20 disputed cases per day — 23 '54. 
 
 Courts of this jurisdiction, at
 
 85 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 1, DISTRICT No. 3. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Blackburn 
 
 159 
 
 112 
 
 95 
 
 44 
 44 
 33 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Bolton 
 
 Preston 
 
 
 Total 
 
 366 
 
 121 
 
 11 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 Blackburn 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 1,038-4 
 2,341 
 470-8 
 
 51-92 
 
 117-05 
 
 23-54 
 
 £ 
 259-6 
 585-25 
 117-7 
 
 Bolton 
 
 Preston 
 
 
 Total 
 
 13 
 
 3,850-2 
 
 192-51 
 
 962-55 
 
 SUMMARY OE THE WHOLE CIRCUIT. 
 
 Principal Local Coirrts. 
 
 
 Courts 
 
 Judges 
 
 Days 
 
 available 
 
 for 
 
 Common 
 
 Law. 
 
 Estima- 
 tedNo.of 
 Common 
 
 Law 
 Causes. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Diem. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty 
 Days. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administra- 
 tive, &c. 
 Days. 
 
 District No. 1 . . 
 District No. 2 . . 
 District No. 3.. 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 110 
 121 
 121 
 
 456 
 244 
 366 
 
 4-1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 22 
 11 
 11 
 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 
 Total 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 352 
 
 1,066 
 
 — 
 
 44 
 
 99 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Registrar 
 Judges. 
 
 Days of 
 Sitting. 
 
 District No. 1 
 
 19 
 14 
 13 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 175-92 
 
 66-31 
 
 192-51 
 
 District No. 2 
 
 District No. 3 
 
 
 Total 
 
 46 
 
 9 
 
 434-74
 
 86 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 2, DISTRICT, No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Adminis- 
 trative, 
 &c. 
 
 Liverpool 
 
 408 
 
 77 
 
 5-3 
 
 22 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 Travellina; Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 sitting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 21-8 
 20-46 
 
 47-7 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 31-4 
 
 27-69 
 
 69-8 
 
 Liverpool 
 
 13,113 
 470 
 
 273 
 13 
 27 
 
 2,622-6 
 94 
 597-8 
 
 9-6 
 7-23 
 22-1 
 
 5,958-4 
 
 266 
 1,285-2 
 
 Ormskirk 
 
 St. Helens 
 
 2,989 
 
 
 Total 
 
 16,572 
 
 313 
 
 3,314-4 
 
 — 
 
 7,509-6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 16572. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 2, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Adminis- 
 trative, 
 &c. 
 
 
 315 
 
 44 
 
 7 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 sitting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Manchester 
 
 8.305 
 2.406 
 7,243 
 
 84 
 22 
 38 
 
 1,661 19-78 
 
 4,286 
 
 1,102-8 
 
 2,954-4 
 
 51 
 50-1 
 
 77-75 
 
 70-78 
 72 
 115-86 
 
 Oldham 
 
 481-2 
 1,448-6 
 
 21-9 
 38-11 
 
 Salford 
 
 
 Total 
 
 17,954 
 
 144 
 
 3,590-8 — 
 
 8,343 2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling 
 20 disputed cases per day — 179-54, 
 
 Courts of this jurisdiction, at
 
 87 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 2, DISTRICT 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administrative, &c. 
 
 Liverpool . . , , 
 
 408 
 315 
 
 77 
 44 
 
 22 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 Manchester 
 
 
 Total 
 
 723 
 
 121 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 
 required at 
 
 20 cases 
 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 •Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Liverpool' , 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 3,314-4 
 3,590-8 
 
 165-72 
 
 179-54 
 
 £ 
 
 828-6, 
 897-7 
 
 Manchester 
 
 
 Total 
 
 c 
 
 6,905-2 
 
 345-26 
 
 1,7263 
 
 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 2, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Stockport 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 
 Days available. 
 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 3-5 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Adminis- 
 trative, 
 &c. 
 
 11 
 
 155 
 
 44 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court, 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 sitting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 
 Average. 
 
 Altriiicham 
 
 707 
 
 2,756 
 
 288 
 
 995 
 
 1,065 
 
 2,023 
 
 12 
 
 38 
 11 
 26 
 16 
 26 
 
 141-4 
 551-2 
 57-6 
 199 
 213 
 404-6 
 
 11-88 
 14-5 
 
 5-24 
 
 7-7 
 13-3 
 15-56 
 
 368-6 
 1,354-8 
 
 153-4 
 
 431 
 
 441 
 1,069-4 
 
 30-7 
 
 35-65 
 
 13-94 
 
 16-6 
 
 27-56 
 
 41-13 
 
 42-58 
 
 60-15 
 
 19-18 
 
 24-3 
 
 4086 
 
 56-69 
 
 Ashton-under-Lyne. 
 Glossop 
 
 Hyde 
 
 Macclesfield 
 
 Stockport 
 
 
 Total 
 
 7,834 
 
 129 
 
 1,566-8 
 
 — 
 
 3,818-2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 78*34.
 
 88 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 2, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Com- 
 mon 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 raltj'. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 
 68 
 
 44 
 
 1-32 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Leigh. 
 
 960 
 4,000 
 
 13 
 
 24 
 
 192 
 800 
 
 14-77 
 33-33 
 
 472 
 474 
 
 36-3 
 
 19-75 
 
 51-07 
 53-08 
 
 Warrington 
 
 Total 
 
 4,960 
 
 37 
 
 992 
 
 — 
 
 946 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 49*6. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 2, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Cotut. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 W^igan 
 
 58 
 
 44 
 
 1-32 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Court. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Wigan , 
 
 4,152 
 
 32 
 
 830-4 
 
 25-94 
 
 2,087-6 
 
 65-24 
 
 91-18 
 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Court of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 41-52.
 
 89 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Stockport 
 
 1.55 
 
 .58 
 58 
 
 44 
 44 
 44 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 AVarrington 
 
 AVigan 
 
 
 1 
 
 Total 
 
 271 
 
 132 — i .■?■■? 
 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Kegistrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 Stockport 
 
 6 
 2 
 1 
 
 1,566-8 
 992 
 830-4 
 
 78-34 
 
 49-6 
 
 41-52 
 
 £ 
 391-7 
 248 
 207-6 
 
 
 Wio-an 
 
 
 Total 
 
 9 
 
 3,389-2 
 
 169-46 
 
 847-3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 2, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 
 Days a-s 
 
 ailable. 
 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Kingston-on-Hull 
 
 259 
 
 33 
 
 7-85 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of lUl- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Beverley 
 
 218 
 120 
 798 
 238 
 107 
 211 
 3,791 
 501 
 373 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 63 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 43-6 
 24 
 
 1.59-6 
 47-6 
 21-4 
 42-2 
 758-2 
 100-2 
 74-6 
 
 6-23 
 4 
 
 19-95 
 7-93 
 3-56 
 7-03 
 
 12-03 
 9-1 
 6-78 
 
 111-4 
 
 60 
 376-4 
 124-4 
 
 47-6 
 
 102-8 
 
 1,671-8 
 
 214-8 
 
 144-4 
 
 15-91 
 10 
 
 47-05 
 20-73 
 7-94 
 17-13 
 26-53 
 19-52 
 13-12 
 
 22-14 
 
 14 
 
 67 
 
 28-66 
 
 11-5 
 
 24-16 
 
 38-56 
 
 28-62 
 
 20 
 
 Bridlington 
 
 Goole 
 
 Great Driffield .... 
 Hedon 
 
 Howden 
 
 Hull 
 
 Scarborough. 
 
 Thome 
 
 
 Total 1 6,357 | 124 
 
 1,271-4 
 
 — 
 
 2,853-6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jm-isdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 63-57.
 
 90 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 2, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Stockton-on-Tees 
 
 230 
 
 33 
 
 7 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 
 Jvidg- 
 
 ments, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 (Jases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Barnard Castle . . 
 
 Darlington 
 
 Leyburn 
 
 Northallerton 
 
 Richmond 
 
 Stockton-on-Tees 
 & Middlesborough 
 
 Stokesley 
 
 Whitby 
 
 Total .... 
 
 169 
 
 1,385 
 
 71 
 
 205 
 
 207 
 
 3,100 
 533 
 242 
 
 6 
 12 
 
 6 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 28 
 11 
 11 
 
 33-8 
 
 277 
 14-2 
 41 
 41-4 
 
 620 
 106-6 
 48-4 
 
 5'63 
 
 23-08 
 2-37 
 3-73 
 8-28 
 
 22-14 
 9-7 
 4-4 
 
 89-2 
 633 
 
 27-8 
 113 
 110-6 
 
 ,583 
 273-4 
 94-6 
 
 14-87 
 52-75 
 4-63 
 10-27 
 22-15 
 
 56-53 
 
 24-85 
 
 8-6 
 
 20-5 
 75-83 
 7 
 14 
 30-43 
 
 78-67 
 34-55 
 13 
 
 5,912 
 
 90 
 
 1,182-4 
 
 2,927-6 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day— 59-12. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 2, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative. 
 &c. 
 
 York 
 
 197 
 
 44 
 
 4-5 
 
 — 
 
 11 

 
 91 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Davs 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 ■ 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Easingwold 
 
 Helmsley 
 
 74 
 84 
 487 
 275 
 156 
 216 
 329 
 203 
 124 
 606 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 13 
 
 14-8 
 16-8 
 97-4 
 55 
 31-2 
 43-2 
 65-8 
 40-6 
 24-8 
 121-2 
 
 2-46 
 
 3-36 
 
 8-85 
 
 5 
 
 5-2 
 
 3-93 
 
 5-98 
 
 3-77 
 
 4-96 
 
 9-32 
 
 30-2 
 28-2 
 
 193-6 
 
 169 
 80-8 
 
 112-8 
 
 179-2 
 99-4 
 64-2 
 
 263-8 
 
 5-04 
 5-64 
 17-6 
 15-36 
 13-46 
 10-25 
 16-3 
 16-56 
 12-84 
 20-3 
 
 7-5 
 
 9 
 26-45 
 20-36 
 18.66 
 14-18 
 22-28 
 20-33 
 17-8 
 29-62 
 
 Knaresborough .... 
 
 New Malton 
 
 Pocklington 
 
 Ripon 
 
 Selby 
 
 Tadcaster 
 
 Thirsk 
 
 York 
 
 
 Total 
 
 2,554 
 
 85 
 
 510-8 
 
 — 
 
 1,221-2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 25-54. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Lav.'. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Kingston-on-Hull 
 
 Stockton-on-Tees 
 
 York 
 
 259 33 
 230 33 
 197 44 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 
 Total 
 
 686 i 110 
 
 22 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 'JO cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Kingston-on-Hull, . , 
 
 Stockton-on-Tees 
 
 York 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 10 
 
 1,271-4 
 
 1,182-4 
 
 510-8 
 
 63-57 
 59-12 
 25-54 
 
 £ 
 317-85 
 295-6 
 
 127-7 
 
 Total ' 27 
 
 2,964-6 
 
 148-23 741-15
 
 92 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CIRCUIT. 
 
 Principa' 
 
 Local Courts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Courts 
 
 Judges 
 
 Days 1 Estima- 
 available tedNo. of 
 for Common 
 Common Law 
 
 Law. Causes. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Admi- Bankruptcy, 
 ralty ^^^^^nistra- 
 
 District No. 1 . . 
 District No. 2 . . 
 District No. 3.. 
 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 121 
 132 
 110 
 
 723 
 271 
 686 
 
 5-98 
 2-05 
 6-24 
 
 22 22 
 — 33 
 22 33 
 
 Total 
 
 8 3 
 
 363 
 
 1,680 
 
 4-63 
 
 44 88 
 
 Travelling Coui-ts. 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Registrar 
 Judges. 
 
 Days of 
 sitting. 
 
 District No. 1 
 
 District No. 2 
 
 District No. 3 
 
 6 
 9 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 
 345-26 
 169-46 
 148-23 
 
 Total 
 
 42 
 
 8 
 
 662-95 
 
 
 
 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 3, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. ' 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Halifax 
 
 211 
 
 44 
 
 4-8 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Burnley 
 
 1,037 
 
 3,975 
 
 320 
 
 22 
 48 
 12 
 
 207-4 
 795 
 64 
 
 9-43 
 
 16-56 
 
 5.33 
 
 351-6 
 1,642 
 115 
 
 16- 
 
 '>5-43 
 
 Halifax 
 
 34-2 50-76 
 9-58 14-91 
 
 Todmorden 
 
 Total 
 
 5,332 
 
 82 
 
 1066-4 
 
 — 
 
 2,108-6 
 
 — 1 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 53.32.
 
 93 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 3, DISTRICT No. I, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, i 
 &c. 
 
 Bradford .............. 
 
 295 
 
 44 
 
 6-7 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Davs 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Bradford 
 
 4,454 
 175 
 448 
 445 
 57 
 306 
 
 61 
 
 8 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 890-8 
 35 
 89-6 
 89- 
 11-4 
 61-2 
 
 14.6 
 4-37 
 8-14 
 8-09 
 1-9 
 6-8 
 
 2,220-2 
 
 73 
 
 218'4 
 
 289 
 
 28-6 
 
 194-8 
 
 36-4 
 9-13 
 
 19-86 
 
 26-27 
 4 76 
 
 21-64 
 
 30-4 
 13-5 
 28 
 
 34-36 
 
 6-66 
 
 28-44 
 
 Colne 
 
 Keighley 
 
 Otley 
 
 Settle 
 
 Skipton 
 
 
 Total 
 
 5,885 
 
 106 
 
 1,177 
 
 — 
 
 3,024 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 58-85. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 3, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Dewsburv 
 
 261 
 
 44 
 
 5-9 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Davs 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of unde- 
 fended 
 Cases 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Dewsbury 
 
 Holmfirth 
 
 Huddersfield 
 
 Pontefract 
 
 Saddleworth 
 
 5,431 
 
 335 
 
 3,198 
 
 1,965 
 
 194 
 
 44 
 12 
 40 
 12 
 12 
 
 1086-2 
 
 67 
 639-6 
 393 
 
 38-8 
 
 24-69 
 
 5-58 
 
 15-99 
 
 32-75 
 
 3-23 
 
 1,605-8 
 129 
 976-4 
 996 
 
 56-2 
 
 36-0 
 
 10-75 
 
 24-41 
 
 83 
 4-68 
 
 61-19 
 16-33 
 40-4 
 
 llr75 
 7-91 
 
 Total 
 
 11,123 
 
 120 
 
 2,224-6 
 
 — 
 
 3,763-4 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 111-23.
 
 94 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 Administrative. 
 
 &c. 
 
 Halifax 
 
 211 
 295 
 261 
 
 44 
 44 
 44 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Bradford 
 
 Dewsbury , 
 
 
 Total 
 
 767 
 
 132 
 
 — 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 inchiding 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Halifax 
 
 3 
 6 
 5 
 
 1,066-4 
 
 1,177 
 
 2,224-6 
 
 53-32 
 
 68-85 
 
 111-23 
 
 £ 
 266-6 
 294-25 
 550-15 
 
 Bradford 
 
 Dewsburj' 
 
 
 Total 
 
 14 
 
 4,468 
 
 223-4 
 
 1,117 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 3, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 
 145 
 
 44 
 
 3-3 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Barnsley 
 
 3,295 
 1,287 
 
 28 
 11 
 
 659 
 257-4 
 
 23-7 
 23-4 
 
 1417 
 609-6 
 
 2,026-6 
 
 50-6 
 55-42 
 
 74-3 
 
 78-82 
 
 Doncaster 
 
 
 Total 
 
 4,582 
 
 39 
 
 916-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day— 45-82.
 
 95 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 3, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 La-w Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Sheffield 
 
 223 
 
 88 
 
 2-5 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases, 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Rotherham 
 
 Sheffield 
 
 2,957 
 14,931 
 
 23 
 94 
 
 591-4 
 2,986-2 
 
 25-7 
 31-77 
 
 1,284-6 
 5,636-8 
 
 55-85 
 59-96 
 
 81-55 
 91-73 
 
 
 Total 
 
 17,888 
 
 117 1 3,577-6 
 
 — 
 
 6,921-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 178-88. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts, 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Bamslej' 
 
 145 
 223 
 
 44 
 88 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 22 
 
 Sheffield 
 
 
 Total 
 
 368 
 
 132 J — 
 
 33 
 
 TraveUing Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases, 
 
 No. of days 
 requit-ed 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelliag 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Barnslev 
 
 to to 
 
 916-4 
 3,577-6 
 
 45-82 
 178-88 
 
 £ 
 229-1 
 894-4 
 
 Sheffield 
 
 
 Total 
 
 4 
 
 4,494 
 
 224-7 
 
 1,123-5
 
 96 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 3, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Leeds 
 
 330 
 
 88 
 
 3-7o 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 Travelling Court. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 
 Judg- 
 
 ments, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Leeds 
 
 11,510 
 
 81 
 
 2,302 
 
 28'4 
 
 5,881 
 
 72-6 
 
 101 
 
 
 Number of days required for tlie Travelling Court of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day— 115 '1. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 3, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Wakefield 
 
 86 
 
 44 
 
 2 
 
 — 
 
 U 
 
 
 Travelling Court. 
 
 No of -^^y^ i Estima- ' . 
 T J of tedNo. 1"^^^^ 
 
 S;.i ,?"- "' f- 1 pg 
 
 Court. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Dav. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Wakefield 
 
 2,-395 26 479 ; 18-42 1,055 40-6 59-02 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Coiu't of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 23-95.
 
 97 
 
 Summary" of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days ayailable. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Leeds 
 
 330 
 
 86 
 
 88 
 44 
 
 z 
 
 22 
 11 
 
 Wakefield 
 
 
 Total 
 
 416 
 
 133 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Coui-ts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including. 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelliag 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Leeds 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2,302 
 479 
 
 1 ^ 
 115-1 575-5 
 23-95 119-75 
 
 AVakefield 
 
 
 Total 
 
 2 
 
 2,781 
 
 139-05 695-'25 
 
 
 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CIRCUIT. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 
 Courts 
 
 Judges 
 
 Days 
 available 
 
 for 
 Common 
 
 Law. 
 
 Estima- 
 
 tedNo. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law 
 
 Causes. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Diem. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty 
 Days. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administra- 
 tive, &c., 
 Days. 
 
 District No. 1 . . 
 District No. 2 . . 
 District No. 3.. 
 
 3 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 132 
 132 
 132 
 
 767 
 368 
 416 
 
 5-8 
 2-8 
 3-15 
 
 — 
 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 
 Total .... 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 396 
 
 1,551 
 
 3-9 
 
 — 
 
 99 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Registrar 
 Judges. 
 
 Days of 
 sitting. 
 
 District No. 1 
 
 14 
 
 4 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 223-4 
 
 District No. 2 
 
 2 224-7 
 2 139-05 
 
 District No. 3 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 20 
 
 7 
 
 587-15
 
 98 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 4, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Birkenhead 
 
 101 44 
 
 2-3 i — 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defeiyled 
 
 Cases 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Birkenhead 
 
 Runcorn 
 
 3,344 
 1,011 
 
 34 
 
 12 
 
 668-8 
 202-2 
 
 19-67 
 16-85 
 
 1,199-2 
 220-8 
 
 35-27 
 184 
 
 54-94 
 35-25 
 
 
 Total 
 
 4,355 46 
 
 871 1 — 
 
 1.420 1 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 43*55. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 4, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Chester 
 
 177 
 
 44 
 
 4 i — 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Daj's 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Chester 
 
 1,430 
 149 
 280 
 
 * 526 
 344 
 
 1,341 
 230 
 320 
 
 1,104 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 286 
 
 29-8 
 
 56 
 105-2 
 
 68-8 
 268-2 
 
 46 
 
 64 
 220-8 
 
 17-87 
 5 
 
 11-2 
 9-58 
 6-25 
 
 16-76 
 9-2 
 5-8 
 
 13-8 
 
 613 
 
 92-2 
 
 91 
 366-8 
 170-2 
 656-8 
 
 99 
 171 
 455-2 
 
 38-3 
 
 15-36 
 
 18-2 
 
 33-34 
 
 15-5 
 
 41-05 
 
 15-8 
 
 15-55 
 
 28-45 
 
 56.17 
 
 20-36 
 
 29-4 
 
 42-92 
 
 21-75 
 
 57-81 
 
 25 
 
 21-35 
 
 40-68 
 
 Corwen 
 
 Denbigh 
 
 Holywell 
 
 Mold and Flint 
 
 Northwich 
 
 Ruthin 
 
 St. Asaph and Rhyl. 
 Wrexham, &c 
 
 Total | 5,724 
 
 97 
 
 1,144 8 
 
 - 
 
 2,715-2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 57-24. 
 
 * There appears to be some error in the Parliamentary return here.
 
 99 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 4, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Nantwicli and Crewe .... 
 
 46 
 
 44 
 
 1-05 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Congleton, &c 
 
 Nantwich, &c 
 
 Whitchurch 
 
 767 
 955 
 
 187 
 
 20 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 153-4 
 191 
 37-4 
 
 7-67 
 9.09 
 5 35 
 
 387-6 
 557 
 79-6 
 
 19-38 
 26-52 
 11-37 
 
 27-05 
 35-61 
 16-72 
 
 Total 
 
 1,909 
 
 48 
 
 381-8 
 
 ~ 
 
 1,024-2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 19.09. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Birkenhead 
 
 Chester 
 
 101 
 
 177 
 
 46 
 
 44 
 44 
 44 
 
 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Nantwich, &c 
 
 
 Total 
 
 324 
 
 132 
 
 — ,^3 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required" 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 Birkenhead 
 
 2 
 9 
 3 
 
 871 
 1,144-8 
 381-8 
 
 43-55 
 57-24 
 19-09 
 
 £ 
 217-75 
 286-2 
 95-45 
 
 Chester 
 
 Nantwich, &c 
 
 
 Total 
 
 14 
 
 2,397-6 
 
 119-88 
 
 599-4 
 
 
 
 

 
 100 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 4, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 No. of 
 Common Common 
 Law Causes. Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Chesterfield 
 
 70 44 
 
 1-59 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 sittina; 
 1872'; 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Bakewell 
 
 297 
 
 3.'7 
 
 3,638 
 
 767 
 
 11 
 13 
 22 
 11 
 
 59-4 
 
 69-4 
 
 727-6 
 
 153-4 
 
 5'4 
 
 5-34 
 
 33-07 
 
 13-95 
 
 83-6 
 
 209-6 
 
 1,868-4 
 
 462-6 
 
 2,624-2 
 
 7-6 
 16-12 
 84-93 
 42-05 
 
 13 
 
 21-46 
 118 
 66 
 
 Chapel-en-le-Frith,&c 
 
 Chesterfield 
 
 Worksop 
 
 
 Total 
 
 5,049 
 
 57 
 
 1,009-8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 50-49. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 4, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 11 
 
 Derby 
 
 130 
 
 44 
 
 2-95 
 
 — 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Ashbourne 
 
 Belper, &c 
 
 Burton-on-Trent 
 
 Derby 
 
 Wirksworth . . . 
 
 No. of 
 
 Judg- 
 
 ments, 
 
 1 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 I 
 
 328 
 1,447 
 2,926 
 4,778 
 
 531 
 
 11 
 11 
 12 
 26 
 11 
 
 65-6 
 289-4 
 685-2 
 955-6 
 106-2 
 
 5-96 
 26-3 
 48-76 
 36-75 
 
 9-55 
 
 84-4 
 
 608-6 
 
 815-8 
 
 1,907 4 
 
 108-5 
 
 7-67 
 55-3 
 67-98 
 73-36 
 
 9-9 
 
 ]3'63 
 
 81 6 
 
 116-74 
 
 11011 
 
 19 -55 
 
 1 10,010 
 
 71 
 
 2,002 
 
 — 
 
 3,525 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of clays required ior the TravelUng Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 100.1.
 
 101 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 4, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 249 
 
 44 
 
 5-66 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 sitting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Alfreton 
 
 2. 465 
 117 
 533 
 
 1,477 
 634 
 
 1,473 
 
 6,532 
 
 13,231 
 
 12 
 6 
 11 
 12 
 11 
 11 
 44 
 
 107 
 
 493 
 23-4 
 106 6 
 29-5 4 
 126-8 
 294 6 
 1,306-4 
 
 41 
 
 3-89 
 9-69 
 
 24-6 
 
 9-53 
 26-78 
 29-7 
 
 845 
 
 7o-6 
 294-4 
 497-6 
 i8.5-2 
 8t2-4 
 3,514-6 
 
 7041 
 12-6 
 
 26-67 
 
 41-48 
 
 44-1 
 
 76-58 
 
 79-9 
 
 111-41 
 36 
 
 36 36 
 
 66-08 
 
 53.63 
 
 103-26 
 
 109-6 
 
 Bingham 
 
 Kas' Retford 
 
 Grantham 
 
 Mansfield 
 
 
 Nottingiiam 
 
 Total 
 
 2,646-2 
 
 — 
 
 6,554 8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required tor the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 132-31. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Chesterfield 
 
 70 
 130 
 249 
 
 44 
 44 
 44 
 
 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Derby 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 
 Total 
 
 449 
 
 132 
 
 — 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 includmg 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Chesterfield 
 
 4 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 1,009-8 
 
 2,002 
 
 2,646-2 
 
 50-49 
 100-1 
 132-31 
 
 252-45 
 
 500-5 
 
 661-55 
 
 Derby 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 
 Total 
 
 16 
 
 5,658 
 
 282-9 
 
 1,414-5
 
 102 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 4, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Priircipal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Boston 
 
 91 
 
 33 
 
 2-76 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of unde- 
 fended 
 Cases 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Boston 
 
 902 
 458 
 393 
 380 
 290 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 180-4 
 91-6 
 
 78-6 
 
 76 
 
 58 
 
 16-4 
 8-33 
 714 
 6 9 
 0-27 
 
 382-6 
 215 4 
 186-4 
 239 
 150 
 
 34-78 
 19-68 
 16-95 
 21-73 
 13-63 
 
 51-18 
 27-91 
 24-09 
 28-63 
 18.9 
 
 Horncastle 
 
 Louth. 
 
 Sleaford 
 
 Spilsbv 
 
 
 Total 
 
 2,423 
 
 55 
 
 484-6 
 
 — 
 
 1,173-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 24-23. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 4, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average Admi- 
 per Day.' rally. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Leicester 
 
 195 
 
 44 
 
 4-43 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Ashby-de-la-Zouch . 
 Hinckley 
 
 1,658 
 219 
 5,488 
 1,875 
 235 
 451 
 285 
 393 
 297 
 270 
 
 12 
 
 G 
 
 24 
 
 12 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 331-6 
 
 43-8 
 1,097-6 
 375 
 
 47 
 
 90-2 
 
 57 
 
 78-6 
 
 59-4 
 
 54 
 
 27-4 
 7-3 
 
 45-7 
 
 31-25 
 4-7 
 
 15-03 
 5-18 
 6-65 
 9-9 
 9 
 
 610-4 
 140-2 
 1,438-4 
 306 
 
 73 
 251-8 
 
 98 
 156-4 
 155-6 
 193 
 
 50-86 
 23-37 
 59-93 
 23-83 
 
 7-3 
 41-97 
 
 8-9 
 13-03 
 25-93 
 32-16 
 
 78-26 
 30-67 
 105-63 
 55-08 
 12 
 57 
 
 1408 
 19-08 
 35-83 
 41-16 
 
 Leicester 
 
 Loughborough .... 
 
 Lutterworth 
 
 Market-Bos worth . . 
 Market-Harborough. 
 Melton- Mowbray . . 
 
 Uppingham 
 
 Total 
 
 11.171 
 
 105 
 
 2,234-2 1 — 
 
 3,422-8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 111-71.
 
 103 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 4, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Da<ys available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 1 
 Lincoln 211 
 
 33 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 6-39 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Barton-on-Humber . 
 Brigs 
 
 243 
 377 
 177 
 820 
 919 
 1,274 
 203 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 22 
 
 6 
 
 48-6 
 
 75-4 
 
 3.5-4 
 
 164 
 
 183-8 
 
 254-8 
 
 40-6 
 
 8-1 
 10-77 
 
 5-9 
 14.5 
 15-31 
 11-58 
 
 6-76 
 
 91-4 
 213-6 
 
 95-6 
 235 
 434-2 
 583-2 
 110-4 
 
 15-23 
 
 30-.) 
 
 15-93 
 
 21-36 
 
 36-19 
 
 26-5 
 
 18-4 
 
 23-33 
 
 41-27 
 
 21-83 
 
 35-86 
 
 51-5 
 
 38-08 
 
 25-16 
 
 Caistor 
 
 Gainsborough 
 
 Great Grimsby .... 
 Lincoln 
 
 Market Rasen 
 
 Total 
 
 4,013 
 
 70 
 
 802-6 
 
 — 
 
 1,763-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 40-13. 
 
 Summarv of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Boston 
 
 91 
 195 
 211 
 
 33 
 44 
 33 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Leicester 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 
 Total 
 
 4D7 
 
 110 
 
 22 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 includmg 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 Boston 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 484-6 
 
 2,234-2 
 
 802-6 
 
 24-23 
 
 111-71 
 
 40-13 
 
 12115 
 558-55 
 200-65 
 
 Leicester 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 
 Total 
 
 22 
 
 3,521-4 
 
 176-07 
 
 880-35 

 
 104 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CIRCUIT. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 
 Courts 
 
 Judges 
 
 Days i Estima- 
 available tedNo.of 
 for Common 
 Common' Law 
 
 Law. 1 Causes. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 . J . Bankruptcy, 
 ^<^™^- Administra- 
 [P^.Ji tive, &c., 
 ^^•^^•, Days. 
 
 District No. 1 . . 
 District No. 2 . . 
 District No. 3.. 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 132 
 132 
 110 
 
 324 
 449 
 497 
 
 2-41 
 3-47 
 4-25 
 
 — 33 
 
 — 33 
 
 22 33 
 
 Total 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 374 1 1,270 
 
 3-4 
 
 22 1 99 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Registrar 
 Judges. 
 
 Days of 
 sitting. 
 
 District No. 1 
 
 District No. 2 
 
 District No. 3 
 
 14 
 16 
 22 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 119 88 
 282 -9 
 176-07 
 
 Total 
 
 52 
 
 9 
 
 078-85 
 
 
 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 5, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Bank- 
 Average Admi- ,25^'. 
 per Day. ralty. ^^^^^^^^ 
 
 &c. 
 
 Aberystwith 
 
 119 
 
 44 
 
 2-7 — 1 11 
 
 
 
 
 Travellins: Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Davs 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Aberayron 
 
 Cardigan 
 
 Abervstwith. 
 
 Bala" 
 
 95 
 
 92 
 781 
 
 45 
 201 
 135 
 247 
 281 
 615 
 
 46 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 16 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 7 
 
 12 
 5 
 
 19 
 
 18-4 
 
 156-2 
 
 9 
 
 40-2 
 
 27 
 
 49-4 
 
 56-2 
 123 
 9-2 
 
 3-16 
 3-06 
 9-76 
 1-5 
 67 
 4-0 
 8-28 
 8-03 
 10-25 
 1-84 
 
 61 
 
 26-6 
 395-8 
 
 19 
 1098 
 
 75 
 136-6 
 1488 
 321 
 
 21-8 
 
 10-16 
 
 4-43 
 
 24-74 
 
 3-16 
 
 18-3 
 
 12-5 
 
 22-76 
 
 21-25 
 
 26-75 
 
 4-36 
 
 13-32 
 7-49 
 
 34-5 
 
 12 16 
 
 25 
 
 17 
 
 30-99 
 
 29-28 
 
 37 
 6-2 
 
 Dolgelly 
 
 Llanidloes 
 
 Machynlleth 
 
 Newtown 
 
 Portmadoc 
 
 Rhayader 
 
 TOTAT 
 
 2,538 
 
 76 
 
 507 6 
 
 — 
 
 1,275-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts oi ti.is jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day— 25-38.
 
 105 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 5, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Bangor 
 
 91 
 
 33 
 
 2-76 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Davs 
 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Bangor 
 
 670 
 1,285 
 165 
 320 
 150 
 207 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 134 
 237 
 
 33 
 
 64 
 
 30 
 
 41-4 
 
 12-18 ^^" 
 
 30-28 
 63-40 
 14-2 
 16-9 
 
 2-66 
 17-43 
 
 42-46 
 
 86-78 
 
 20-8 
 
 22-7 
 
 18-66 
 
 24-33 
 
 Carnarvon 
 
 Conway 
 
 23-33 
 
 6-G 
 5-8 
 6 
 6-9 
 
 698 
 
 71 
 186 
 
 76 
 104-6 
 
 Llangefni 
 
 Llanwrst 
 
 PwUheli 
 
 
 1 Total 
 
 2,797 
 
 49 
 
 559-4 
 
 — 
 
 1,468-6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of tbis jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases^per day — 27*97. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 5, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Shrewsburv 
 
 172 
 
 44 
 
 3-9 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 

 
 106 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Davs 
 oi" 
 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per . 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Bishop's Castle .... 
 
 Bridgnorth 
 
 Cleobury Mortimer. . 
 Knighton 
 
 280 
 333 
 241 
 237 
 115 
 374 
 
 1,391 
 391 
 452 
 
 1,207 
 459 
 621 
 182 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 ? 
 
 6 
 13 
 18 
 
 6 
 12 
 25 
 13 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 56 
 
 66-6 
 
 48-2 
 
 47-4 
 
 23 
 
 74-8 
 278-2 
 
 78-2 
 
 90-4- 
 241-4 
 
 91-8 
 124-2 
 
 36 4 
 
 9-33 
 
 11-1 
 
 8-03 
 
 6-77 
 
 3-83 
 
 5-75 
 
 15 4 
 
 13-03 
 
 7 53 
 
 9-65 
 
 7-06 
 
 9-55 
 
 fi-Ofi 
 
 73 
 
 384 
 
 32-8 
 
 72-6 
 
 60 
 
 73-2 
 218-8 
 
 40-8 
 187-6 
 248-6 
 191-2 
 333-8 
 
 42-6 
 
 12-17 
 6-4 
 5-46 
 
 10-3 
 
 10 
 5-63 
 
 12-15 
 68 
 
 15 63 
 9-94 
 
 14-7 
 
 25-68 
 7-1 
 
 21-5 
 
 17-5 
 
 13-49 
 
 17-07 
 
 13-83 
 
 11-38 
 
 27-49 
 
 19-83 
 
 23-16 
 
 19-59 
 
 21-76 
 
 35-23 
 
 1316 
 
 Llanfyllin 
 
 Ludlow 
 
 Madelv 
 
 Newport (Salop) . . 
 Oswestry 
 
 Shrewsbury 
 
 Welchpool 
 
 AVellington (Salop).. 
 "Wem 
 
 
 1 
 
 Total 
 
 6,283 
 
 137 
 
 1,256-0 ' — 
 
 1,613-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 62-83, 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Aberystwith 
 
 119 
 
 91 
 
 172 
 
 44 
 33 
 44 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Bangor 
 
 Shrewsbury 
 
 
 Total 
 
 382 
 
 121 
 
 11 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Kegistrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Abervstwith 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 507-6 
 
 559 4 
 
 1,256-6 
 
 25-38 
 
 27-97 
 62-83 
 
 £ 
 126-9 
 139-85 
 314 15 
 
 Bangor 
 
 Shrewsbury 
 
 
 Total 
 
 29 
 
 2,323-6 
 
 116-18 
 
 580 9 1 
 
 
 

 
 107 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 5, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Davs available. 
 
 Estimated 1 
 
 Principal Local Court. Cmnn°on Common' Average 
 
 Law Causes. I Law. per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Caermarthen . 
 
 93 
 
 33 
 
 2-82 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Davs 
 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting. 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 (Jases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Caermarthen 
 
 Haverfordwest .... 
 Lampeter 
 
 291 
 261 
 
 99 
 214 
 
 91 
 161 
 
 95 
 361 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 G 
 12 
 
 6 
 12 
 
 58-2 
 
 52-2 
 
 19-8 
 
 42-8 
 
 18-2 
 
 32-2 
 
 19 
 
 72-2 
 
 4-85 
 
 4- 35 
 
 3-3 
 
 7-13 
 
 3-03 
 
 2-68 
 
 3-13 
 
 6 
 
 178-8 
 1468 
 50-2 
 91-2 
 46-8 
 44-8 
 35 
 167-8 
 
 14-9 
 12-23 
 
 8-36 
 15-2 
 
 7-8 
 
 3-73 
 
 5-83 
 13-98 
 
 19-75 
 16-58 
 11-66 
 22-33 
 10-83 
 6-41 
 8-96 
 19-98 
 
 Llandilofawr 
 
 Llandovery 
 
 Xarbertli 
 
 Newcastle Emlyn . . 
 Pembroke 
 
 Total 
 
 1,-573 1 72 i 314-6 
 
 — 
 
 761-4 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling 
 20 disputed cases per day — 15-73. 
 
 Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 5, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common Common [Average 
 Law causes. | I^aw. per day. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Admi- 
 raltv. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Merthyr Tyddl , 
 
 202 
 
 44 
 
 4-6 
 
 11
 
 108 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Aljerdare . . . . 
 Abergavenny 
 
 Brecon 
 
 Builth 
 
 Crickhowell 
 
 Merthyr 
 
 Pontypridd . . 
 Tredegar 
 
 Total. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 2,562 
 
 445 
 
 296 
 
 58 
 
 145 
 
 2,722 
 
 1,904 
 
 2,017 
 
 10,149 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 23 
 11 
 11 
 5 
 6 
 30 
 11 
 13 
 
 110 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 512-4 
 
 89 
 
 59-2 
 
 11-6 
 
 29 
 544-4 
 380-8 
 403-4 
 
 2,029-8 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 22-28 
 8 
 
 0-38 
 2-3 
 4-83 
 
 18-14 
 
 34-6 
 
 31 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 845-6 
 
 170 
 
 130-8 
 
 34-4 
 
 62 
 1,177-6 
 933-2 
 762-6 
 
 4,116-2 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 37-76 
 15-5 
 12 
 6-88 
 10-3 
 39-25 
 84-83 
 58-66 
 
 Total 
 Average, 
 
 59-04 
 23-5 
 17-36 
 9-18 
 15-13 
 57-39 
 119-43 
 89-66 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Cotirts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day— 101-49. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 5, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 
 220 
 
 33 
 
 6-66 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Bridgend, &c. 
 Llanelly . . . . 
 
 Neath 
 
 Swansea .... 
 
 Total 
 
 721 
 
 665 
 
 2,338 
 
 3,224 
 
 6,948 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872 
 
 12 
 11 
 20 
 46 
 
 89 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 
 Cases. 
 
 144-2 
 133 
 467-6 
 644-8 
 
 1,389-6 
 
 Aver 
 age 
 per 
 
 Dav. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of tm- 
 del'ended 
 Cases. 
 
 12 
 12 
 
 23-38 
 14-02 
 
 409-8 
 
 368 
 1,275-4 
 1,645-2 
 
 3,698-4 
 
 Aver- 
 age I Total 
 per I Average 
 
 Day. I 
 
 34-15 
 3345 
 63-77 
 32-6 
 
 46-15 
 45-45 
 87-15 
 46-62 
 
 Nuniber of days required for the Travelling Cotuts of this jmisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 69-48.
 
 109 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 
 Days a\ 
 
 •ailable. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Caermarthen 
 
 93 
 
 33 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Merthvr Tvdlil 
 
 202 
 220 
 
 44 
 33 
 
 Swansea 
 
 
 Total i 495 
 
 110 
 
 22 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 Estimated No. of days 
 No. of ' No. of 1 required 
 Courts. contested at 20 cases 
 Cases. per day. 
 
 ] 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Caermarthen 
 
 Merthvr Tydfil 
 
 Swansea < 
 
 8 314-6 15-73 
 8 2,029-8 1 101-49 
 4 1,389-6 j 69-48 
 
 £ 
 78-65 
 507-45 
 347-4 
 
 
 Total 20 ( 3,734 j 186-7 
 
 933-5 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 0, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Bank- 
 
 Admi- \T'^'' 
 
 ralty. ^\^'^}^- 
 •' istrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Gloucester 
 
 194 33 
 
 5-88 
 
 11 11 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 187-'. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted N&. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Cheltenham 
 
 Cirencester 
 
 Durslev 
 
 1,213 
 242 
 268 
 
 1,353 
 253 
 252 
 571 
 66 
 592 
 265 
 178 
 186 
 
 26 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 2:3 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 242-6 
 48-4 
 53-6 
 
 270-6 
 50-6 
 504 
 
 114-2 
 13-2 
 
 118-4 
 53 
 35-6 
 37-2 
 
 9-33 
 4-4 
 4-46 
 10-4 
 4-6 
 8.4 
 6-74 
 2-2 
 7-4 
 7-57 
 4-45 
 6-2 
 
 558-4 21-48 
 123-6 11-24 
 133-4 1M-'. 
 
 30-81 
 15-64 
 1558 
 24-37 
 17-36 
 27-33 
 23-61 
 8-16 
 25-06 
 21-57 
 13-5 
 17 
 
 Gloucester 
 
 Malmesbury 
 
 Newent 
 
 363-4 
 140-4 
 1136 
 286-8 
 
 35-8 
 282 6 
 
 98 
 
 72-4 
 
 64-8 
 
 13-97 
 12-76 
 18-93 
 16-87 
 
 5-96 
 17-66 
 1-4 
 
 9-05 
 10-8 
 
 Newnham 
 
 Northleach 
 
 Stroud 
 
 Tewkesbury 
 
 Thurnbury 
 
 Winchcomb 
 
 Total 
 
 5,439 
 
 152 
 
 I,0b7-S 
 
 — 
 
 2,273-2 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 54-39.
 
 110 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 5, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 A dmin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Hereford 
 
 87 
 
 44 
 
 2 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872 
 
 Hay 
 
 Hereford . . 
 Kington . . 
 Ledbury . . 
 Leominster 
 Presteign , . 
 Ross 
 
 161 
 1,549 
 lo4 
 230 
 548 
 8() 
 362 
 
 Total 3,090 
 
 Days 
 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average, 
 
 6 
 30 
 6 
 6 
 24 
 5 
 6 
 
 32-2 
 309-8 
 
 30-8 
 
 46 
 109 6 
 
 17-2 
 
 72-4 
 
 5-36 
 10-32 
 5-13 
 7-66 
 4-56 
 3-44 
 12-06 
 
 78-8 
 666-2 
 
 7(1-2 
 112 
 172-4 
 
 27-8 
 143-6 
 
 13-14 
 22-2 
 11-7 
 18-66 
 7 19 
 5-56 
 23 94 
 
 18-5 
 32-52 
 16-83 
 26-32 
 11-75 
 9 
 36 
 
 83 
 
 618 
 
 — 
 
 1,271 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 30-9. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 5, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 AA'erage 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Newport 
 
 227 
 
 33 
 
 6-9 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 ( Monmouthshire) 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 
 Judg- 
 
 ments 
 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Cardiff 
 
 2,234 
 285 
 448 
 
 1,588 
 629 
 130 
 
 37 
 11 
 11 
 23 
 11 
 6 
 
 446-8 
 
 57 
 
 89-6 
 317-6 
 125-8 
 
 26 
 
 12-07 
 
 518 
 
 8-14 
 
 13-8 
 
 11-44 
 
 4-33 
 
 1,005-2 
 150 
 250-4 
 716-4 
 260-2 
 74 
 
 27-19 
 13-54 
 22-76 
 31-15 
 23-65 
 12-33 
 
 39-26 
 
 18-72 
 
 30-9 
 
 44-95 
 
 35-09 
 
 16-66 
 
 Chepstow 
 
 Monmouth 
 
 Newport (Mon.). . . . 
 
 Pontypool 
 
 Usk 
 
 
 Total 
 
 5,314 
 
 99 
 
 1,062-8 
 
 — 
 
 2,456-2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 53-14.
 
 Ill 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Gloucester 
 
 194 
 
 87 
 
 227 
 
 33 
 44 
 33 
 
 U 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Hereford 
 
 Newport (Monmouthshire) 
 
 Total 
 
 508 
 
 110 
 
 22 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling- Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 requi -ed 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 Gloucester 
 
 12 
 7 
 6 
 
 1,087.8 
 
 618 
 1,062-8 
 
 54-39 
 
 30-9 
 
 53-14 
 
 £ 
 271-95 
 154-5 
 265-7 
 
 Hereford 
 
 Newport 
 
 
 Total 
 
 25 
 
 2.768-6 
 
 138-43 
 
 692-15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CIRCUIT. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 
 Coui-ts 
 
 Judges 
 
 Days 
 available 
 
 for 
 Common 
 
 Law. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. of 
 Common 
 
 Law 
 Causes. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Diem. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty 
 Days. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administra- 
 tive, &c. 
 Days. 
 
 District No. 1.. 
 District No. 2 . . 
 District No. 3 . . 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 121 
 110 
 110 
 
 382 
 495 
 508 
 
 3-16 
 
 4.5 
 
 4-25 
 
 U 
 
 22 
 22 
 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 
 Total 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 341 
 
 1,385 
 
 4 
 
 55 
 
 99 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 29 
 20 
 25 
 
 No. of 
 Registrar 
 Judges. 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 Days of 
 Sitting. 
 
 District No. 1 
 
 116-18 
 1867 
 138 43 
 
 District No. 2 
 
 District No. 3 
 
 
 Total 
 
 74 
 
 9 
 
 441-31 
 
 
 

 
 112 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 6, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Com- 
 mon 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 j Bank- 
 
 ^^^J^'- i Admin- 
 ^■^l^y- 'istrative, 
 1 &c. 
 
 StaflFord 
 
 216 
 
 44 
 
 4-9 
 
 — 11 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 Cheadle 
 
 Hanley, &c 
 
 Leek 
 
 Market Drayton . . 
 Newcastle - under - 
 
 Lyme 
 
 Rugeley 
 
 Stafford 
 
 Stoke 
 
 Stone , 
 
 Uttoxeter 
 
 Total 13,838 126 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 280 
 
 6,022 
 
 532 
 
 155 
 
 2,360 
 
 197 
 719 
 3,180 
 222 
 171 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 12 
 34 
 11 
 6 
 12 
 
 6 
 11 
 
 23 
 5 
 6 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 66 
 1,204-4 
 106-4 
 31 
 
 472 
 
 39 
 143 
 636 
 
 44 
 
 34 
 
 2,767-6 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 4-67 
 
 35-42 
 
 9-67 
 
 5-16 
 
 39-33 
 
 6-56 
 
 13-07 
 
 27 65 
 
 8-88 
 
 6-7 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 98 
 2,599-6 
 283-6 
 
 48 
 968 
 
 78-6 
 
 228-2 
 
 1,096 
 
 85-6 
 
 66-8 
 
 5,552-4 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 8-16 
 76-46 
 25-78 
 
 8 
 80-67 
 
 13 1 
 
 20-75 
 
 47-65 
 
 17-12 
 
 13-36 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 12 73 
 
 111-88 
 
 35-45 
 
 13-16 
 
 1'20 
 
 19-66 
 
 33-82 
 
 75-3 
 
 26 
 
 19-06 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 138-38. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 6, DISTRICT No. 1. JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Adminis- 
 trative, 
 &c. 
 
 Walsall 
 
 140 
 
 44 
 
 3-18 
 
 — Ill 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No, 
 of dis- 
 pute d 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 31-75 
 2172 
 51-5 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 56-5 
 31-08 
 78 9 
 
 Oldbury 
 
 4,208 
 515 
 4,899 
 
 34 
 11 
 36 
 
 81 
 
 841-6 
 103 
 979 8 
 
 1.921 4 
 
 24 75 
 
 936 
 
 27-4 
 
 1,0794 
 
 239 
 1,8542 
 
 3.200 6 
 
 Lichfield 
 
 Walsall 
 
 
 Total 
 
 9.622 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Number of days lequired for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 96*22.
 
 113 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 6, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common Common Average Admi- 
 Law Causes. Law. per Day. j ralty, 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Wol verhampton 
 
 104 
 
 44 
 
 2-36 — 
 
 11 
 
 Travellins; Court. 
 
 Court. 
 
 ■vr J. Days Estima- , . 
 ^°\f! of ted No. h^^^^- 
 
 •^'^'^F"' Sit- of dis- ' ^g^ 
 ments, Jf " ", per 
 1872 1 *^"S> puted j^ 
 '■^'^- ! 1872. Cases. | "^^• 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Wolverhampton .... 
 
 6,462 47 1,292-4 27-5 
 
 2,636-6 
 
 56 
 
 83-5 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Court of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 64-62. 
 
 Siimmary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Stafford 
 
 216 
 140 
 104 
 
 44 
 
 44 
 44 
 
 11 
 
 — 11 
 
 — 11 
 
 Walsall 
 
 Wolverhampton 
 
 Total 
 
 460 
 
 132 
 
 _ 
 
 33 1
 
 114 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 6, DISTRICT No. 2. JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Adminis- 
 trative, 
 &c 
 
 Birmingham* 
 
 409 
 
 88 
 
 4-65 
 
 — 
 
 22 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting-, 
 1872.' 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 pt-r 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Birmingham* 
 
 16,916 
 
 140 
 
 3,383-2 
 
 2416 
 
 6,137.8 
 
 4384 
 
 68 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 169 16. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 6. DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTIONT No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 j Bank- 
 
 . J . ruptcv. 
 Admi- , , ' . •. 
 , Adiiiinis- 
 
 '^'^>'- [ trative, 
 
 1 &c. 
 
 Dudley 
 
 129 
 
 44 
 
 2.93 
 
 — 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days of 
 
 sittinsr. 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Lascs. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Dudley 
 
 4,313 
 
 2,467 
 
 41 
 23 
 
 862-6 
 493-4 
 
 21 04 
 2145 
 
 2,010 4 
 1.1226 
 
 49-03 
 48-8 
 
 7007 
 705 
 
 Stourbridge 
 
 
 1 
 
 Total 
 
 6,780 
 
 ^ip,356 
 
 — 
 
 3,133 
 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 67 8. 
 
 ^ See Prefatory Remarks, ante p. 78.
 
 115 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administrative, &c. 
 
 Birmingham 
 
 409 
 129 
 
 88 
 44 
 
 
 22 
 U 
 
 
 Total 
 
 538 
 
 132 
 
 — 
 
 33 
 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 
 required at 
 
 20 cases 
 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 3,383-2 
 1,356 
 
 16916 
 67-8 
 
 £ 
 
 845-8 
 339 
 
 Dudley 
 
 
 Total 
 
 3 
 
 4,739-2 
 
 236-96 
 
 1,184-8 
 
 
 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 6, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Oxford 
 
 134 
 
 44 
 
 3 — 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average, 
 
 Abingdon , 
 
 Banbiiry 
 
 Bicester 
 
 Brackley 
 
 Chipping Norton 
 
 Faringdon 
 
 Oxford , 
 
 Stow 
 
 Wantage 
 
 Witney 
 
 Woodstock 
 
 448 
 635 
 397 
 169 
 257 
 190 
 1,042 
 225 
 245 
 291 
 262 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 89-6 
 
 127 
 79-4 
 33-8 
 51-4 
 38 
 
 208-4 
 45 
 49 
 58-2 
 52-4 
 
 7-47 
 10-58 
 6-61 
 3-07 
 8-56 
 6-33 
 17-37 
 7-5 
 8-16 
 9-7 
 8-73 
 
 187-4 
 314 
 
 55-6 
 
 99-2 
 111-6 
 
 74 
 522-6 
 
 75 
 
 81 
 
 69-8 
 
 91-6 
 
 15-61 
 26-17 
 
 4-63 
 
 9 
 
 18-6 
 12-33 
 43-55 
 12-5 
 13-5 
 11-63 
 15-27 
 
 23-08 
 
 36-75 
 
 11-24 
 
 12-07 
 
 27-16 
 
 18-66 
 
 60-92 
 
 20 
 
 21-66 
 
 21-33 
 
 24 
 
 Total 4,16ll 95 
 
 832-2 
 
 1,681-8 — 
 
 Nxunber of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 41-61.
 
 116 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 6, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Warwick 
 
 118 
 
 44 
 
 2-7 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of unde- 
 fended 
 Cases 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Alcester 
 
 249 
 240 
 954 
 407 
 611 
 198 
 237 
 365 
 294 
 1,230 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 49-8 
 
 48 
 190-8 
 
 81-4 
 122-2 
 
 39-6 
 
 47-4 
 
 73 
 
 58-8 
 246 
 
 8-3 
 6 
 
 15-9 
 6-78 
 
 11-11 
 6-6 
 7-9 
 6-64 
 8-4 
 
 20-5 
 
 109-2 
 
 88 
 451-2 
 181-6 
 315-8 
 
 64-4 
 
 84-6 
 135 
 
 83-2 
 654 
 
 18-2 
 
 14-66 
 
 37-6 
 
 15-13 
 
 28-7 
 
 10-73 
 
 H-1 
 
 12-27 
 
 11-9 
 
 46-17 
 
 26-5 
 
 20-66 
 
 63-5 
 
 21-91 
 
 39-81 
 
 17-33 
 
 22 
 
 1891 
 
 20-3 
 
 66-67 
 
 Atherstone 
 
 Coventry 
 
 Nuneaton 
 
 Rugby 
 
 SolihuU 
 
 Southam 
 
 Stratford-on-Avon . . 
 
 Tamworth 
 
 Warwick 
 
 
 Total 
 
 4,785 
 
 91 
 
 957 
 
 — 
 
 2,067 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 47*85. 
 
 CIRCUIT No, 6, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Worcester 
 
 1 
 166 44 
 
 3-77 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 

 
 117 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court, 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 .1872. 
 
 Davs 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Bromsgrove 
 
 Bromyard 
 
 Droitwich 
 
 Evesham 
 
 543 
 
 211 
 280 
 499 
 640 
 
 1,776 
 301 
 515 
 400 
 305 
 
 2,412 
 
 11 
 6 
 6 
 
 12 
 6 
 
 12 
 6 
 6 
 
 12 
 6 
 
 24 
 
 108 6 
 
 42-2 
 
 56 
 
 99-8 
 128 
 355-2 
 
 60-2 
 109 
 
 80 
 
 61 
 482-4 
 
 9-87 
 
 7-03 
 
 9-33 
 
 8-32 
 
 21-33 
 
 29-6 
 
 10 03 
 
 18-16 
 
 6-66 
 
 10-17 
 
 20-1 
 
 1.30-4 
 96-8 
 162 
 235-2 
 297 
 671-8 
 149-8 
 296 
 211 
 103 
 780-6 
 
 11-85 
 
 16-13 
 
 27 
 
 19-6 
 
 49-5 
 
 56 
 
 24-97 
 
 49-34 
 
 17-58 
 
 17-16 
 
 32-52 
 
 21-72 
 
 23-16 
 
 36-33 
 
 27-92 
 
 70-83 
 
 85-6 
 
 35 
 
 67-5 
 
 24-24 
 
 27-43 
 
 52-62 
 
 Great Malvern 
 
 Kidderminster .... 
 Pershore 
 
 Kedditch 
 
 Shipston-on-Stour. . 
 Tenbury 
 
 "Worcester 
 
 Total 
 
 7,912 
 
 107 
 
 1,582-4 
 
 — 
 
 3,133-6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 79-12. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Oxford 
 
 134 
 118 
 166 
 
 44 
 44 
 44 
 
 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 ^Varwick 
 
 Worcester 
 
 
 Total 
 
 418 
 
 132 J — 1 33 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Coujts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 req\iii-ed 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Oxford 
 
 11 
 10 
 11 
 
 832.2 
 957 
 1,582-4 
 
 41-61 
 47-85 
 79-12 
 
 £ 
 208-05 
 239-25 
 395-6 
 
 AN'^arwick 
 
 Worcester 
 
 
 Total 
 
 32 
 
 3,371-6 
 
 168-58 
 
 842-9 
 
 
 
 

 
 118 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CIRCUIT. 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 
 Courts 
 
 Judges 
 
 Days 
 
 available 
 
 for 
 
 Common 
 
 Law. 
 
 Estima- 
 tedNo.of 
 Common 
 
 Law 
 Causes. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Diem. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty 
 Days. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administra- 
 tive, &c. 
 Days. 
 
 District No. 1 . . 
 District No. 2.. 
 District No. 3 . . 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 132 
 132 
 132 
 
 460 
 538 
 418 
 
 3-48 
 
 4 
 
 3-16 
 
 — 
 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 
 Total 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 396 
 
 1,416 
 
 3-56 
 
 — 
 
 99 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Registrar 
 Judges. 
 
 Days of 
 Sitting. 
 
 District No. 1 
 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 32 
 
 49 
 
 3 
 2 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 299-22 
 236-96 
 168-58 
 
 704-76 
 
 District No. 2 
 
 District No. 3 
 
 
 Total 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 7, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Bedford 
 
 98 
 
 44 
 
 2-22 
 
 — 
 
 U 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Number of days required for tlie Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 31-68.
 
 119 
 
 CIRCinT No. 7, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. I 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank, 
 ruptcy 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 96 
 
 44 
 
 2-18 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Cotirt. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments 
 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 Ely 
 
 949 
 315 
 290 
 281 
 209 
 255 
 179 
 65 
 
 14 
 
 7 
 6 
 11 
 7 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 
 189-8 
 63 
 
 58 
 
 56-2 
 
 41-8 
 
 51 
 
 35-8 
 
 13 
 
 13-55 
 9 . 
 
 9-66 
 
 5-1 
 
 6 
 
 8-5 
 
 6 
 
 2-16 
 
 536-2 
 128 
 113 
 146-8 
 
 85-2 
 157 
 
 70-2 
 
 32 
 
 38-3 
 18-3 
 19 
 
 13-35 
 12-17 
 26-16 
 11-7 
 5-34 
 
 51-85 
 27-3 
 28-66 
 18-45 
 18-17 
 34-56 
 17-7 
 7-5 
 
 HaverTiill 
 
 March. 
 
 Newmarket 
 
 Royston 
 
 Saffiron Walden , . . . 
 Soh.am. 
 
 
 Total 
 
 2,543 
 
 63 
 
 508-6 
 
 — 
 
 1.268-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Coixrts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 25-43. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 7, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Northampton 
 
 83 
 
 44 
 
 2 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 No. of ^^p 
 
 Court. ift Sit- 
 
 ments, ,. 
 
 1879 tmg, 
 1872. 5872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of im- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Daventry 
 
 Kettering 
 
 254 
 333 
 
 
 50-8 
 666 
 254-6 
 53 
 
 49-8 
 93-8 
 
 4-62 
 6-05 
 18-18 
 4-81 
 4-53 
 8-53 
 
 133-2 
 
 191-4 
 
 633-4 
 
 146 
 
 104-2 
 
 235-2 
 
 12-1 
 17-4 
 45-24 
 13-27 
 9-47 
 21-38 
 
 16-72 
 
 23-45 
 
 63-42 
 
 18-08 
 
 14 
 
 29-91 
 
 Northampton 
 
 Thrapstone 
 
 Towcester 
 
 Wellingborough .... 
 
 1,273 
 265 
 249 
 469 
 
 Total 
 
 2,843 
 
 69 
 
 568-6 
 
 — 
 
 1,433-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day— 28-43.
 
 120 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Lav.'. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Bedford 
 
 98 
 96 
 83 
 
 44 
 44 
 44 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 Northampton 
 
 
 Total 
 
 277 
 
 132 
 
 — 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Kegistrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Bedford 
 
 7 
 8 
 6 
 
 633-6 
 508-6 
 568-6 
 
 31-68 
 25-43 
 28-43 
 
 £ 
 158-4 
 127-15 
 142-15 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 Northampton 
 
 
 Total 
 
 21 
 
 1,710-8 
 
 85-54 
 
 427-7 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 7, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 King's Lynn 
 
 73 
 
 33 
 
 2-21 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Downham ^Market . . 
 
 East Dereham 
 
 Holbeach 
 
 156 
 162 
 611 
 553 
 
 577 
 112 
 
 6 
 11 
 11 
 13 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 31-2 
 
 32-4 
 
 122-2 
 
 110-6 
 
 115-4 
 
 22-4 
 
 5-2 
 
 2-95 
 11 11 
 
 8.5 
 10-5 
 
 3-73 
 
 62-8 
 
 73-6 
 
 332-8 
 
 174-4 
 
 284-6 
 
 71-6 
 
 10-46 
 6-7 
 30-25 
 13-4 
 25-87 
 11-5 
 
 15-66 
 9-65 
 41-36 
 21-9 
 36-37 
 16-23 
 
 King's Lynn 
 
 Spalding 
 
 Swaffham 
 
 i Total 
 
 2,171 
 
 58 1 434-2 
 
 — 
 
 996-8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 21.71.
 
 121 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 7, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law, 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Norwich 
 
 98 
 
 44 
 
 2-23 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Attleboroiigh 
 
 Avlsham 
 
 59 
 
 87 
 207 
 
 67 
 218 
 177 
 
 92 
 
 1,216 
 
 116 
 
 68 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 23 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 11-8 
 17-4 
 41-4 
 13-4 
 43-6 
 35-4 
 18-4 
 243-2 
 23-2 
 13-6 
 
 1-96 
 1-58 
 3-76 
 2-23 
 3-96 
 5-9 
 2-04 
 10-57 
 3-86 
 2-26 
 
 42-2 
 38-6 
 
 110-6 
 38-6 
 92-4 
 85-6 
 38-6 
 
 484-8 
 71-8 
 31-4 
 
 7-03 
 3-5 
 
 10-05 
 6-43 
 8-4 
 
 14-26 
 4-29 
 
 21-07 
 
 11-96 
 5-24 
 
 8-99 
 
 .V08 
 13-81 
 
 8-66 
 12-36 
 20-16 
 
 6-33 
 31-64 
 15-82 
 
 7-5 
 
 Diss and Eye 
 
 Holt 
 
 Little Walsingham . 
 
 Mildenhall 
 
 North Walsham .... 
 Norwich 
 
 Thetford 
 
 Wymondham 
 
 Total 
 
 2,307 
 
 95 
 
 461-4 
 
 — 
 
 1,034-6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 23-07. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 7, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Adminis- 
 trative, 
 &c. 
 
 Peterborough 
 
 84 
 
 44 
 
 1.9 
 
 — 
 
 11 

 
 122 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days of 
 
 sitting, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Bourn 
 
 519 
 
 458 
 
 1,192 
 
 517 
 
 602 
 
 
 1038 
 916 
 238-4 
 lOS-4 
 120-4 
 
 9-43 
 8-33 
 
 21-67 
 9-4 
 
 10-95 
 
 2822 
 237-4 
 500-6 
 203-6 
 274-6 
 
 23-65 
 21-58 
 45-5 
 18-5 
 24 96 
 
 35-08 
 
 29-91 
 
 67-17 
 
 27-9 
 
 35-91 
 
 Oundle 
 
 Peterborough 
 
 Stamford 
 
 Wisbech 
 
 
 Total 
 
 3,288 
 
 55 
 
 657-6 
 
 — 
 
 1,498-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 32 88. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 King's Lynn 
 
 73 
 98 
 84 
 
 33 
 44 
 44 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Norwich , 
 
 Peterborough 
 
 
 Total 
 
 255 
 
 121 
 
 11 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 King's Lynn 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 434-2 
 461-4 
 657-6 
 
 21-71 
 23-07 
 32-88 
 
 £ 
 108-55 
 115-35 
 164-4 
 
 Norwich 
 
 Peterborough 
 
 
 Total 
 
 21 
 
 1.553-2 
 
 77-66 
 
 388-3 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 7, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Adminis- 
 trative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Colchester 
 
 86 
 
 33 
 
 2-6 
 
 11 
 
 11 

 
 123 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day, 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Braintree 
 
 233 
 244 
 394 
 819 
 104 
 135 
 251 
 247 
 263 
 403 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 46-6 
 48-8 
 78 8 
 163-8 
 20-8 
 27 
 50-2 
 49-4 
 526 
 80-6 
 
 7-76 
 8-13 
 6-56 
 13-65 
 3-46 
 4-5 
 8-36 
 8-23 
 7-51 
 6-71 
 
 115-4 
 1292 
 135-2 
 311-2 
 
 55-2 
 
 89 
 1468 
 
 25-6 
 163-4 
 234-4 
 
 19-23 
 21-53 
 11-27 
 25 93 
 
 9-2 
 14-83 
 24-46 
 
 4-26 
 23-34 
 19-53 
 
 26 99 
 29-66 
 17-83 
 39-58 
 12-66 
 19 33 
 32-82 
 12-49 
 30-85 
 26-24 
 
 Chelmsford 
 
 Colchester 
 
 
 Halstead 
 
 Harwich 
 
 Maiden 
 
 Rochford 
 
 Romford 
 
 
 Total 
 
 3,093 
 
 79 
 
 618-6 
 
 — 
 
 1,405-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 30-93. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 7, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court, 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Ipswich 
 
 109 
 
 33 
 
 3-3 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court 
 
 Bury St. Edmunds. 
 Framlingham,&c.... 
 Hadleigh 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 576 
 250 
 219 
 1,520 
 303 
 334 
 218 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 sitting, 
 1872. 
 
 "21"" 
 11 
 6 
 46 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 115-2 
 50 
 43-8 
 
 304 
 60-6 
 66-8 
 43-6 
 
 5-48 
 
 4-55 
 
 7-3 
 
 6-6 
 
 5-5 
 
 5-56 
 
 3-35 
 
 350-8 
 142 
 
 48-2 
 795 
 
 87-4 
 141-2 
 1324 
 
 16-7 
 12-9 
 8-03 
 17-3 
 
 8 
 
 11-77 
 10-2 
 
 22-18 
 
 17-45 
 
 15-33 
 
 23-9 
 
 13-5 
 
 17-33 
 
 13-55 
 
 Ipswich 
 
 Stowmarket 
 
 Sudbury 
 
 Woodbridge 
 
 
 Total 
 
 3,420 
 
 120 
 
 684 
 
 — 
 
 1,697 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdictioa, a 
 20 disputed cases per day — 34-2.
 
 124 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 7, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law, 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 11 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 11 
 
 Yarmouth (Great) 
 
 103 
 
 33 
 
 3-1 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Beccles, &c 
 
 239 
 180 
 197 
 333 
 760 
 
 11 
 11 
 8 
 15 
 32 
 
 47-8 
 36 
 39-4 
 666 
 152 
 
 4-35 
 3-27 
 4-92 
 4-44 
 4-75 
 
 130-2 
 82 
 
 124-6 
 162-4 
 149 
 
 11-84 
 
 7-45 
 
 15-58 
 
 10-8 
 
 4-65 
 
 16-19 
 10-72 
 20-5 
 15-24 
 9-4 
 
 Halesworth 
 
 Harleston 
 
 Lowestoft 
 
 Yarmouth 
 
 
 Total 
 
 1,709 
 
 77 
 
 341-8 
 
 — 
 
 628-2 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 17-09. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Colchester 
 
 86 
 109 
 103 
 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Ipswich 
 
 Yarmouth (Great) 
 
 Total 
 
 298 
 
 99 
 
 33 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Covirts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 Colchester 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 6 
 
 618-6 
 
 684 
 
 341-8 
 
 30-93 
 
 34-2 
 
 17-09 
 
 £ 
 154-65 
 171 
 85-45 
 
 Ipswich 
 
 Yarmouth (Great) 
 
 Total 
 
 22 
 
 1,644-4 
 
 82-22 
 
 411-1
 
 125 
 
 SUMMARY 0F7THE WHOLE CIRCUIT. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 
 Courts 
 
 Judges 
 
 Days 
 available 
 
 for 
 Common 
 
 Law. 
 
 Estima- 
 
 tedNo.of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law 
 
 Causes. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Diem. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty 
 Days. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administra- 
 tive, &c., 
 Days. 
 
 District No. 1 . . 
 District No. 2 . . 
 District No. 3.. 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 132 
 
 121 
 
 99 
 
 277 
 255 
 298 
 
 2-1 
 2-1 
 3 
 
 11 
 33 
 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 
 Total .... 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 352 
 
 830 
 
 2-3 
 
 44 
 
 99 
 
 Travelling Covirts. 
 
 
 
 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Registrar 
 Judges. 
 
 Days of 
 sitting. 
 
 District No. I 
 
 21 
 21 
 22 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 85-54 
 77-66 
 82-22 
 
 District No. 2 
 
 District No. 3 
 
 
 Total 
 
 64 
 
 9 
 
 245-42 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 8, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 * 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 London, N 
 
 343 
 
 132 
 
 2-6 
 
 — 
 
 33 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 
 Average 
 
 Barnet 
 
 ■281 
 6,276 
 8,631 
 
 875 
 
 12 
 145 
 148 
 
 22 
 
 327 
 
 56-2 
 1,255-2 
 1,706-2 
 175 
 
 4-68 
 
 8-65 
 
 11-73 
 
 8 
 
 157-8 
 2,489-8 
 2,833-8 
 
 379 
 
 13-15 
 17-17 
 19-15 
 17-23 
 
 17-83 
 26-82 
 3088 
 25-23 
 
 Bloomsbury 
 
 Clerkenwell 
 
 Edmonton 
 
 Total 
 
 15,963 
 
 3,192-6 
 
 — 
 
 5,860-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 159-63. 
 
 * This average will in this and other London Courts be probably much increased by 
 transferred causes.
 
 im 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 London, N 
 
 343 
 
 132 
 
 — 
 
 33 
 
 
 Travelling Court, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 London, N. . ■ 
 
 4 
 
 3,192-6 
 
 159-63 
 
 798-15 
 
 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 8, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. I. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Estimated I 
 
 No. of 
 Common Common 
 Law Causes.' Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 London, E. 
 
 201 
 
 132 
 
 1-5 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Bow ■ 
 
 6,358 
 6,517 
 5,973 
 
 ■ 60 
 
 85 
 
 111 
 
 1,071-6 
 1,303-4 
 1,194-6 
 
 17-89 
 15-23 
 10-76 
 
 1,595-4 
 2,082-6 
 2,314'4 
 
 26-59 
 
 24-5 
 
 20-85 
 
 444-48 
 39-73 
 31-61 
 
 Shoreditch. 
 
 "Whitechapel 
 
 Total 
 
 17,848 
 
 256 
 
 3,569-6 
 
 — 
 
 5,992-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 178-48. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 London, E. 
 
 Estimated ' 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common Common 
 Law Causes. Law. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 201 
 
 132 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 33
 
 127 
 
 Travelling Court, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 London, E 
 
 3 
 
 3,569-6 
 
 178-48 
 
 892-4 
 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 8, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 London, W 
 
 631 
 
 88 
 
 7-2 — 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Brentford 
 
 Brompton 
 
 Marylebone 
 
 Uxbridge 
 
 1,734 
 4,312 
 5,014 
 672 
 6,566 
 
 16 
 58 
 73 
 12 
 
 127 
 
 346-8 
 862-4 
 
 1,002-8 
 134-4 
 
 1,313-2 
 
 21-67 
 
 14-87 
 
 13-73 
 
 11-2 
 
 10-34 
 
 957-2 
 2,053-6 
 2,160-2 
 
 273-6 
 3,215-8 
 
 59-82 
 35-4 
 29-6 
 22-8 
 
 81-49 
 50-27 
 43-33 
 34 
 
 Westminster 
 
 25-32 35-66 
 
 Total 
 
 18,298 
 
 286 
 
 3,659-6 
 
 — 
 
 8,660-4 
 
 — — 
 
 Number of days required for tlie Travelling Courts of this jui-isdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 182'98. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 8, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 
 &e. 
 
 London, S 
 
 246 
 
 44 
 
 5-6 
 
 — 
 
 11
 
 128 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Lambeth 
 
 5,310 
 7,629 
 988 
 
 61 
 
 121 
 
 23 
 
 1,062 
 1,525-8 
 197-6 
 
 17-4 
 
 12-61 
 
 8-6 
 
 1,981 
 2,441-2 
 308-4 
 
 32-47 
 20-16 
 13-4 
 
 49-87 
 32-87 
 22 
 
 Sourhwark 
 
 Woolwich 
 
 
 Total 
 
 13.927 
 
 205 
 
 2,785-4 
 
 — 
 
 4,7306 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days lequired for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 139-27. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Coui-ts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcj--, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 London, W 
 
 631 
 
 246 
 
 88 
 44 
 
 — 
 
 22 
 11 
 
 London, S 
 
 
 Total 
 
 877 
 
 132 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including. 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 London, W 
 
 5 
 3 
 
 3,659-6 
 2,785-4 
 
 182-98 
 139-27 
 
 914-9 
 698-35 
 
 London, S 
 
 
 Total 
 
 8 
 
 6,445 
 
 322-25 
 
 1,613-25 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CIRCUIT. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 
 Courts 
 
 Judges 
 
 Days 
 available 
 
 for 
 Common 
 
 Law. 
 
 Estima- 
 tedNo.of 
 Common 
 
 Law 
 Causes. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Diem. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty 
 Days. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administra- 
 tive, &c.. 
 Days. 
 
 District No. 1 . . 
 District No. 2 . . 
 District No. 3. . 
 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 132 
 132 
 132 
 
 343 
 201 
 
 877 
 
 2-6 
 1-5 
 6-6 
 
 — 1 33 
 
 — 1 33 
 
 — : 33 
 
 Total 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 396 1 1,421 
 
 3-6 
 
 — 99
 
 129 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Registrar 
 Judges. 
 
 Days of 
 
 sitting. 
 
 District No. 1 
 
 District No. 2 
 
 District No. 3 
 
 4 
 3 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 159-63 
 178-48 
 322-25 
 
 Total 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 660-36 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 9, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 1 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Aylesbury 
 
 68 
 
 44 
 
 1.56 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Aylesbury 
 
 Buckingham 
 
 Chesham 
 
 375 
 312 
 222 
 488 
 276 
 
 12 
 11 
 12 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 75 
 
 62-4 
 
 44-4 
 
 97-6 
 
 65-2 
 
 6-25 
 
 6-67 
 
 3-7 
 
 8-13 
 
 4-6 
 
 230 
 91-6 
 115-6 
 217-4 
 131-8 
 
 19-16 
 
 7-63 
 
 9-63 
 
 18-12 
 
 10-98 
 
 25-41 
 
 13-3 
 
 13-33 
 
 26-25 
 
 15-58 
 
 High Wycombe 
 
 Thame 
 
 
 Total 
 
 1,673 
 
 59 
 
 334-6 
 
 — 
 
 786-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Cotirts of this jiirisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 16-73. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 9, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 2. , 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 
 Days available. 
 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Hertford 
 
 152 
 
 44 
 
 3-45 
 
 — 
 
 11
 
 130 
 
 Trarelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Bishop Stortford . . 
 Hertford 
 
 253 
 619 
 454 
 819 
 530 
 693 
 546 
 
 10 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 13 
 12 
 
 50-6 
 123-8 
 
 90-8 
 163-8 
 106 
 118-6 
 109-2 
 
 5-06 
 10-31 
 7-56 
 13-65 
 8-83 
 9-12 
 9-1 
 
 102-4 
 
 184-2 
 
 268-2 
 
 391-2 
 
 293 
 
 180-4 
 
 274-8 
 
 10-24 
 
 15-35 
 
 22-35 
 
 32-6 
 
 24-44 
 
 13-88 
 
 22-9 
 
 15-3 
 
 25*66 
 
 29-91 
 
 46-25 
 
 33-27 
 
 23 
 
 33 
 
 Leighton Buzzard . . 
 Luton 
 
 St. Alban's 
 
 Waltham Abbey . . 
 "Watford 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 3,814 
 
 83 
 
 762-8 
 
 — 
 
 1,694-2 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed eases per day — 38-14, 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 9, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Com- 
 mon 
 Law. 
 
 Bank- 
 
 Average Admi- -£'. 
 per day. ralty. .^^^^^.^^^ 
 
 i 1 ^^• 
 
 Reading 
 
 126 
 
 44 
 
 2.86 _ 1 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Dayi 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Basingstoke 
 
 Henley-on-Thames 
 
 Hungerford 
 
 Newbury 
 
 Reading 
 
 Wallingford 
 
 Windsor 
 
 358 
 118 
 233 
 459 
 1,037 
 218 
 750 
 
 12 
 7 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 71-6 
 23-6 
 46-6 
 91-8 
 
 207-4 
 43-6 
 
 160 
 
 5-97 
 3-37 
 9-32 
 8-35 
 
 18'85 
 6-23 
 
 12-5 
 
 259-4 
 54-4 
 46-4 
 227-2 
 470-6 
 82-4 
 392 
 
 21-61 
 
 7-77 
 9-28 
 20-65 
 42-8 
 11-77 
 32-7 
 
 27-58 
 
 11-14 
 
 18-6 
 
 29 
 
 61-65 
 
 18 
 
 45-2 
 
 Total 3,173 
 
 65 
 
 634-6 
 
 1,532-4 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 31-73. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Aylesburv 
 
 68 
 152 
 126 
 
 44 
 44 
 44 
 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Hertford 
 
 Reading 
 
 
 Total 
 
 346 
 
 132 
 
 — 
 
 33
 
 131 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 subordinate to 
 and including 
 
 No. of 
 Co\uts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Aylesbury 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 7 
 
 334-6 
 762-8 
 634-6 
 
 16-73 
 38-14 
 31-73 
 
 £ 
 83-65 
 190-7 
 1.58-65 
 
 Hertford 
 
 Reading 
 
 
 Total 
 
 19 
 
 1,732 
 
 86-6 
 
 433 
 
 
 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 9, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 1 Bank- 
 
 Admi- i I'^P'^J' 
 
 ^^^^5- istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Crovdon 
 
 107 
 
 44 
 
 2-43 
 
 — 
 
 11 1 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Cotirt. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Croydon 
 
 1,189 
 294 
 
 601 
 312 
 
 23 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 237-8 
 58-8 
 
 120-2 
 62-4 
 
 10-34 
 9-8 
 
 10-02 
 10-4 
 
 617-2 
 124-2 
 
 188-8 
 164-6 
 
 26-83 
 20-7 
 
 15-31 
 27-63 
 
 37-17 
 30-5 
 
 25-33 
 38-03 
 
 Epsom 
 
 Godalming and 
 
 Guildford 
 
 Reigate 
 
 
 Total 
 
 2,. 39 6 
 
 47 
 
 479-2 
 
 — 
 
 1,089-8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the TraveUing Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day— 23-96. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 9, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 1 Bank- 
 
 Admi- \j^^y' 
 ralty. Admm.s. 
 •' ' trative, 
 ; &c. 
 
 Kingston-on-Thames ... 99 
 
 44 
 
 2-25 
 
 — i 11
 
 132 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of '^^P 
 
 Jii<ig- sit- 
 ments, ,. „ 
 
 187'> 1 *"^^' 
 ^"'•^- 1872. 
 
 Estima- . 
 ted No. ^;//- 
 
 °ff- per 
 puted ^ 
 
 Cases, -^^y- 
 
 1 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Cliertsey 
 
 515 , 13 
 
 916 ' 12 
 
 2,163 33 
 
 103 
 
 183-2 
 
 432-6 
 
 8 
 
 15-27 
 13-1 
 
 1 
 
 262 20-1 
 
 491-8 40-98 
 
 1,005-4 30-47 
 
 28-1 
 
 56-25 
 
 43-57 
 
 
 Wandsworth 
 
 Total 
 
 3,594 ' 58 ! 718-8 ! - 
 
 1.759-2 ! — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 35-94. 
 
 CIRCUIT No, 9, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Rochester 
 
 174 
 
 33 5-27 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 sitting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 
 336 
 612 
 934 
 
 2,651 
 935 
 
 3,154 
 H3 
 502 
 176 
 481 
 
 11 
 12 
 11 
 31 
 22 
 Si 
 6 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 67-2 
 122-4 
 186-8 
 530-2 
 187 
 630-8 
 
 28-6 
 100-4 
 
 35 2 
 
 6-1 
 
 10-2 
 
 16-99 
 
 17-1 
 
 8-5 
 
 lS-55 
 
 4-76 
 
 9 13 
 
 3-2 
 
 177-8 
 371-6 
 3402 
 
 16-16 
 30 97 
 30-93 
 
 22-26 
 41-17 
 47-92 
 60-56 
 3218 
 53-65 
 17-36 
 83-63 
 1055 
 29-55 
 
 Dartford 
 
 
 
 1,347-S , 43-46 
 
 
 521 
 1.1932 
 
 74-4 
 269-6 
 
 80-8 
 228-8 
 
 23-68 
 351 
 12-6 
 24-5 
 
 7-35 
 20-8 
 
 
 Sevenoaks 
 
 
 Tonbridge Wells ... 
 
 96-2 1 8-75 
 
 Total 
 
 9,924 
 
 160 
 
 1.984-8 1 — 
 
 4,605-2 1 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day— 99-24.
 
 133 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administrative, &c. 
 
 Croydon 
 
 107 
 
 99 
 
 174 
 
 44, 
 44 
 33 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Kingston-on-Thames 
 
 Rochester 
 
 Total ' 380 
 
 121 
 
 11 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 
 required at 
 
 20 cases 
 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 4:79-2 
 
 718-8 
 
 1,984-8 
 
 23-96 
 
 35-94 
 99-24 
 
 £ 
 
 119-8 
 179.7 
 496-2 
 
 Kingston-on-Thames 
 
 Rochester 
 
 
 ToTAt 
 
 17 
 
 3,183-8 
 
 159-14 
 
 795-7 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 9, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Adminis- 
 trative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Brighton 
 
 430 
 
 33 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average- 
 
 Arundel 
 
 Brighton 
 
 Chichester ... 
 
 Cuckfield 
 
 Dorking 
 
 East Grinstead 
 
 Hastings 
 
 Horsham , 
 
 Lewes 
 
 Rye 
 
 Worthing ...... 
 
 233 
 2,911 
 482. 
 173 
 115 
 
 67 
 640 
 19J 
 627 
 
 80 
 237 
 
 6 
 
 38 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 47-6 
 582-2 
 
 96-4 
 
 35-6 
 
 23 
 
 13-4 
 128 
 
 39 
 125-4 
 
 16 
 
 47-4 
 
 7-93 
 15-32 
 8-03 
 5-93 
 3-83 
 2-23 
 7 
 
 6-5 
 
 10-45 
 
 2-66 
 
 7-9 
 
 113-4 
 
 2,222-8 
 
 157-6 
 
 61-4 
 
 61 
 
 28-6 
 297 
 
 87 
 389-6 
 
 41 
 107-6 
 
 18-9 
 
 58-5 
 
 13-13 
 
 10-23 
 
 10-17 
 
 4-77 
 16-5 
 14-5 
 32-46 
 
 6-83 
 17-93 
 
 26-83 
 73-82 
 21-16 
 16-16 
 14 
 
 7 
 23-5 
 21 
 42-91 
 
 9-49 
 25-83 
 
 Total 5,770 
 
 122 
 
 1,154 
 
 — 3,567 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 57 '7.
 
 134 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 9, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Canterbury 
 
 126 
 
 33 
 
 3-8 1 n 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling; Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Asbford 
 
 360 
 671 
 116 
 3.50 
 541 
 370 
 
 87 
 241 
 287 
 
 40 
 216 
 659 
 108 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 5 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 6 
 11 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 11 
 11 
 
 72 
 134-2 
 
 23-2 
 
 70 
 108-2 
 
 74 
 
 17-4 
 
 48-2 
 
 57-4 
 8 
 
 43-2 
 111-8 
 
 21-6 
 
 6-55 
 
 12-2 
 4-64 
 6-36 
 9-84 
 6-72 
 2-9 
 4-38 
 4-78 
 1-U 
 7-2 
 
 10-16 
 1-96 
 
 214 
 300-8 
 
 54-8 
 149 
 302-8 
 222 
 
 32-6 
 109-8 
 133-6 
 
 11 
 118-8 
 209-2 
 
 66-4 
 
 19-45 
 27-35 
 10-96 
 13-55 
 27-52 
 20-18 
 
 5-43 
 
 9-9 
 11-13 
 
 1-6 
 19-8 
 19 
 
 6-04 
 
 26 
 
 39-55 
 
 15-6 
 
 19-91 
 
 37-36 
 
 27-9 
 
 8-33 
 14-28 
 159-1 
 
 2-74 
 27 
 29-16 
 
 8 
 
 Canterbury 
 
 Deal 
 
 Dover 
 
 Faversham 
 
 Folkestone 
 
 Hytbe 
 
 Margate 
 
 Ramsgate 
 
 Romney 
 
 Sandwich 
 
 Sittingbourne 
 
 Tenterden 
 
 Total 
 
 3,946 
 
 124 
 
 789-2 
 
 — 
 
 1,924-8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 39 -46. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 9, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Com- 
 mon 
 liaw. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 i Bank- 
 
 Admi- : '^^If' 
 ralrv Admin- 
 ^'^^ • istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Portsmouth 
 
 279 
 
 33 
 
 8-46 i 11 ' 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Midhurst 
 
 141 
 
 1,052 
 
 221 
 
 216 
 
 2,954 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 38 
 
 28-2 
 
 210-4 
 
 44-2 
 
 43-2 
 
 590-8 
 
 4-7 
 
 17-53 
 
 7-36 
 
 7-2 
 
 15-55 
 
 94-8 
 
 808-6 
 
 77-8 
 
 110-8 
 
 2,026-2 
 
 15-8 
 
 67-38 
 
 12-93 
 
 18-46 
 
 53-32 
 
 20-5 
 
 84-91 
 
 20-29 
 
 25-66 
 
 68-87 
 
 Newport and Ryde . 
 
 Petersfield 
 
 Petworth 
 
 Portsmouth 
 
 Total 
 
 4,584 
 
 68 
 
 916-8 
 
 — 
 
 3,118-2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days requiredj^for the Travelling 
 disputed ewes per day — 45 '84. 
 
 Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20
 
 135 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts, 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Brighton 
 
 430 
 126 
 279 
 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Canterbury 
 
 Portsmouth 
 
 
 Total 
 
 835 
 
 99 
 
 33 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Kegistrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 Brighton 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 1,154 
 789-2 
 916-8 
 
 57-7 
 
 39-46 
 
 45-84 
 
 £ 
 288-5 
 197-3 
 229-2 
 
 Canterbury 
 
 Portsmouth 
 
 
 Total 
 
 29 
 
 2.860 
 
 143 
 
 715 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CIRCUIT. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 
 Courts 
 
 Judges 
 
 Days 
 available 
 
 for 
 Common 
 
 Law. 
 
 Estima- 
 tedNo.of 
 Common 
 
 Law 
 Causes. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Diem. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty 
 Days. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administra- 
 tive, &c. 
 Days. 
 
 District No. 1.. 
 District No. 2 . . 
 District No. 3.. 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 132 
 
 121 
 
 99 
 
 346 
 380 
 835 
 
 2-6 
 3-1 
 
 8-4 
 
 11 
 33 
 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 
 Total 9 
 
 3 
 
 352 
 
 1,561 
 
 4-4 
 
 44 
 
 99 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Registrar 
 Judges. 
 
 Days of 
 Sitting. 
 
 District No. 1 
 
 19 
 17 
 29 
 
 65 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 86-6 
 159-14 
 143 
 
 388-74 
 
 District No. 2 
 
 Districi No. 3 
 
 
 Total
 
 1S6 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 10, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admiir- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Salisbury 
 
 104 44 
 
 2-4 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments 
 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Andover 
 
 268 
 386 
 212 
 204 
 229 
 593 
 438 
 241 
 93 
 540 
 389 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 53-6 
 77-2 
 42-4 
 40-8 
 45-8 
 
 118-6 
 87-6 
 48-2 
 18-6 
 
 108 
 77-8 
 
 4-87 
 
 7 
 
 7-06 
 
 6-8 
 
 7-63 
 10-78 
 
 7-96 
 
 4 
 
 3-1 
 18 
 
 7-07 
 
 167-4 
 134-8 
 
 84-6 
 
 72-2 
 160-2 
 205-4 
 175-4 
 114-8 
 
 68-4 
 
 49 
 140-2 
 
 15.22 
 
 12-24 
 
 14-1 
 
 12-03 
 
 23-7 
 
 18-67 
 
 15-94 
 
 9-58 
 11-4 
 
 8-16 
 12-75 
 
 20 09 
 
 1924 
 
 21-16 
 
 18-83 
 
 31-33 
 
 29-45 
 
 23-9 
 
 13-58 
 
 14-5 
 
 26-16 
 
 19-82 
 
 Bladford 
 
 Christchurch 
 
 Fordingbridge 
 
 Romsey 
 
 Salisbury 
 
 Shaftesbury 
 
 Warminster 
 
 Westbury 
 
 Wimborne 
 
 Wincanton 
 
 Total 
 
 3,593 
 
 97 
 
 718-6 
 
 — 
 
 1,372-4 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for tlie Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 35-93. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 10, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Southampton 
 
 122 
 
 33 
 
 3-7 
 
 11 
 
 11 

 
 137 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of un- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Alton 
 
 127 
 
 166 
 581 
 138 
 1,629 
 741 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 35 
 
 12 
 
 25-4 
 
 33-2 
 
 116-2 
 
 27-6 
 
 325-8 
 
 148-2 
 
 4-23 
 5-53 
 
 10-56 
 4-6 
 9-3 
 
 12-35 
 
 55-6 
 
 74-8 
 
 334-8 
 
 79-4 
 
 870-2 
 
 325-8 
 
 9-26 
 12-46 
 30-44 
 13-23 
 24-86 
 27-15 
 
 13-49 
 
 17-99 
 
 41 
 
 17-83 
 
 34-16 
 
 39-5 
 
 Bishop's Waltham. . 
 Farnham 
 
 Lymington 
 
 Southampton 
 
 "Winchester 
 
 Total 
 
 3,382 
 
 76 
 
 676-4 
 
 — 
 
 1,740-6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 33-82. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 10, DISTRICT No. 1, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Dorchester 
 
 118 
 
 33 
 
 3-6 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Bridport 
 
 465 
 221 
 402 
 228 
 151 
 519 
 529 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 6 
 11 
 11 
 
 93 
 
 44-2 
 80-4 
 45-6 
 30-2 
 103-8 
 105-8 
 
 8-45 
 
 4 
 
 7-3 
 
 4-15 
 
 5-03 
 
 9-44 
 
 9-62 
 
 241 
 103-8 
 
 68-8 
 100-4 
 
 59-8 
 203-2 
 278-2 
 
 21-9 
 9-44 
 6-24 
 9-12 
 9-97 
 18-47 
 25-3 
 
 30-35 
 
 13-44 
 
 13-54 
 
 13-27 
 
 15 
 
 27-91 
 
 34-92 
 
 Crewkerne 
 
 Dorchester 
 
 Poole 
 
 Wareham 
 
 Weymouth 
 
 Yeovil 
 
 
 Total 
 
 2,515 
 
 72 503 
 
 — 
 
 1,055 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Coiirts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 25-15. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common Admi- 
 Law. ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Salisbury 
 
 104 
 122 
 118 
 
 44 
 33 
 33 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 Southampton 
 
 Dorchester 
 
 
 Total 
 
 344 
 
 110 
 
 22 33 1
 
 138 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 requii-ed 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Salisbury 
 
 11 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 718.6 
 676-4 
 503 
 
 35-93 
 33-82 
 25-15 
 
 £ 
 179-65 
 169-1 
 125-75 
 
 Southampton 
 
 Dorchester 
 
 
 Total 
 
 24 
 
 1.898 
 
 94-9 
 
 474-5 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 10, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Bath 
 
 209 
 
 44 
 
 4-75 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Bath 
 
 1,905 
 250 
 139 
 
 295 
 129 
 366 
 516 
 156 
 113 
 1,018 
 238 
 
 27 
 14 
 
 6 
 12 
 
 8 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 
 6 
 13 
 12 
 
 381 
 
 50 
 
 27-8 
 
 59 
 
 25-8 
 
 73-2 
 103-2 
 
 31-2 
 
 22-6 
 203-6 
 
 47-6 
 
 14-11 
 3-57 
 4-63 
 4-9 
 3-22 
 6-1 
 8-6 
 2-6 
 3-76 
 
 15-66 
 3-97 
 
 1,241 
 134 
 
 63-2 
 162 
 
 85-2 
 199-8 
 264-8 
 
 82-8 
 
 45-4 
 468-4 
 131-4 
 
 31-48 
 
 9-57 
 
 10-53 
 
 13-5 
 
 10-65 
 
 16-65 
 
 22-06 
 
 6-9 
 
 7-56 
 
 36-03 
 
 10-95 
 
 45-59 
 13-14 
 15-16 
 18-4 
 13-87 
 22-75 
 30-66 
 9-5 
 11-32 
 51-69 
 14-92 
 
 Bradford, &c 
 
 Calne 
 
 Chippenham 
 
 Chipping Sodbury . . 
 Devizes 
 
 Frome 
 
 Marlborough 
 
 Melksham 
 
 S windon 
 
 Temple Cloud 
 
 Total 
 
 5,125 
 
 134 ' 1,025 
 
 — 
 
 2,878 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 51-25. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 10, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Bridgwater .... 
 
 133 
 
 33 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 11 

 
 139 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of unde- 
 fended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Bridgwater 
 
 Chard 
 
 1,046 
 255 
 265 
 120 
 450 
 251 
 486 
 472 
 229 
 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 6 
 12 
 12 
 11 
 12 
 12 
 
 209-2 
 51 
 53 
 24 
 90 
 50-2 
 97-2 
 94-4 
 45-8 
 
 17-43 
 4-25 
 4-4 
 4 
 
 7-5 
 4-18 
 8-84 
 7-87 
 3-81 
 
 278-8 
 
 91 
 145 
 
 67 
 150 
 133-8 
 2438 
 202-6 
 117-2 
 
 23-23 
 7-68 
 12 
 
 11-16 
 12-5 
 11-15 
 22-16 
 16-88 
 9-77 
 
 40-66 
 
 11-83 
 
 16-4 
 
 15-16 
 
 20 
 
 15-33 
 
 31 
 
 24-75 
 
 13-58 
 
 Langport 
 
 South Molton 
 
 Taunton 
 
 Wellington 
 
 Wells 
 
 Weston-super-Mare. 
 Williton 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 3,574 101 
 
 714-8 
 
 — 
 
 1,429-2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 35-74. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 10, DISTRICT No. 2, JURISDICTION No. 3. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Bristol 
 
 261 
 
 33 
 
 7-6 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 
 Judg- 
 
 ments, 
 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 of 
 Sit- 
 ting, 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 1 
 
 Axbridge 
 
 191 
 7,763 
 
 12 
 100 
 
 38-2 
 1,552-6 
 
 3-18 
 15-52 
 
 112-8 
 3,205-4 
 
 9-4 
 32-05 
 
 12-58 
 47-57 
 
 Bristol 
 
 
 Total 
 
 7,964 
 
 112 
 
 1,590-8 
 
 — 
 
 3,318-2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 79-54. 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Bath 
 
 209 
 133 
 251 
 
 44 
 33 
 33 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Bridgwater 
 
 Bristol 
 
 
 Total 
 
 593 
 
 110 
 
 22 
 
 33
 
 140 
 
 Travelling Courts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 Registrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 Judge. 
 
 Bath 
 
 Bridgwater 
 
 11 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 1,025 
 
 714-8 
 1,590-8 
 
 51-25 
 35-74 
 79-54 
 
 £ 
 256-25 
 178-7 
 397-7 
 
 Bristol 
 
 
 Total 
 
 22 
 
 3,330-6 
 
 166-53 
 
 832-65 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 10, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 1. 
 
 Principal Local Court. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average 
 per day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Exeter 
 
 247 
 
 33 
 
 7-5 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872, 
 
 Davs 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Axminster 
 
 Barnstaple 
 
 Bideford 
 
 318 
 512 
 348 
 232 
 
 1,441 
 118 
 279 
 
 1,006 
 
 264 
 354 
 168 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 12 
 
 8 
 32 
 
 6 
 12 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 6 
 
 63-6 
 
 102-4 
 
 69-6 
 
 46-4 
 
 288-2 
 
 23-6 
 
 55-8 
 
 201-2 
 
 52-8 
 70-8 
 33-6 
 
 7-95 
 8-53 
 5-8 
 5-8 
 9 
 
 3-93 
 
 4-65 
 
 11-18 
 
 8-8 
 5-9 
 6-6 
 
 109-4 
 169-6 
 210-4 
 130-6 
 640-8 
 46-4 
 151-2 
 533-8 
 
 158-2 
 
 190-2 
 
 64-4 
 
 13-67 
 14-13 
 17-53 
 16-32 
 20 
 7-73 
 12-6 
 29-65 
 
 26-36 
 15-85 
 10-73 
 
 21-62 
 
 22-66 
 
 23-33 
 
 22-12 
 
 29 
 
 11-66 
 
 17-25 
 
 40-83 
 
 35-16 
 21-75 
 17-33 
 
 Crediton 
 
 Exeter 
 
 Holsworthy 
 
 Honiton 
 
 Newton Abbot and 
 
 Torqiiay 
 
 Okehampton 
 
 Tiverton 
 
 Torrington 
 
 Total 
 
 5,040 
 
 132 
 
 1,008 
 
 — 
 
 2,405 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jujisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 50'4.
 
 141 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 10, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No. 2. 
 
 Principal Local Court, 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of I 
 Common .Common 
 Law Causes.; Law 
 
 Average 
 per Day. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Plvmouth. 
 
 220 
 
 33 
 
 6-6 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Cotirts. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 
 sitting 
 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 
 of un- 
 defended 
 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average 
 
 Camelford 
 
 East Stonehouse 
 
 Kingsbridge 
 
 Launceston 
 
 Liskeard 
 
 188 
 4,151 
 176 
 399 
 675 
 492 
 583 
 
 6 
 46 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 37-6 
 830-2 
 
 35-2 
 
 79-8 
 115 
 
 98-4 
 116-6 
 
 6-25 
 18-05 
 
 5-83 
 
 7-98 
 10-5 
 
 8-94 
 10-6 
 
 87-4 
 1,901-8 
 
 81-8 
 196-2 
 332 
 216-6 
 166-4 
 
 14-56 
 
 41-34 
 
 13-63 
 
 19-62 
 
 30-2 
 
 19-7 
 
 15-13 
 
 20-81 
 
 59-39 
 
 19-46 
 
 27-6 
 
 40-7 
 
 28-64 
 
 25-73 
 
 Tavistock 
 
 Totnes, &c 
 
 
 Total 
 
 6,564 
 
 101 
 
 1,312-8 
 
 — 
 
 2,982 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jiuisdiction, at 20 
 disputed cases per day — 65-64. 
 
 CIRCUIT No. 10, DISTRICT No. 3, JURISDICTION No.':3. 
 
 Principal Local Cotirt. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Average Admi- 
 perDay.j ralty. 
 
 i 
 
 Bank- 
 ruptcy, 
 Admin- 
 istrative, 
 &c. 
 
 Truro 
 
 130 
 
 33 
 
 4 11 
 
 11 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 No. of 
 Judg- 
 ments, 
 1872. 
 
 Days 
 
 of 
 sitting 
 1872. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of dis- 
 puted 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 Day. 
 
 Estima- 
 ted No. 
 of tm- 
 defended 
 Cases. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Day. 
 
 Total 
 Average. 
 
 Bodmin 
 
 185 
 487 
 227 
 870 
 1,201 
 630 
 148 
 783 
 
 8 
 11 
 11 
 12 
 11 
 12 
 
 8 
 20 
 
 37 
 
 97-4 
 
 45-4 
 174 
 240-2 
 126 
 
 29-6 
 156-6 
 
 4-62 
 
 8-85 
 
 4-13 
 
 14-5 
 
 21-84 
 
 10-5 
 
 3-7 
 
 7-83 
 
 46 
 154-6 
 
 77-6 
 510 
 557-8 
 240 
 
 58-4 
 206-4 
 
 5-75 
 14-05 
 
 7-05 
 42-5 
 50-7 
 20 
 
 7-3 
 10-32 
 
 10-37 
 
 22-9 
 
 11-18 
 
 57 
 
 72-54 
 
 30-5 
 
 11 
 
 18-15 
 
 Falmouth 
 
 Helston 
 
 Penzance 
 
 Redruth 
 
 St. Austell 
 
 St. Columb 
 
 Truro 
 
 
 Total 
 
 4,531 
 
 93 
 
 906-2 
 
 — 
 
 1,850-8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Number of days required for the Travelling Courts of this jurisdiction, at 
 20 disputed cases per day — 45-31.
 
 142 
 
 Summary of the District. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 No. of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law Causes. 
 
 Days available. 
 
 Common 
 Law. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 Administrative, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Exeter 
 
 247 
 220 
 130 
 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 Plymouth 
 
 Truro 
 
 Total 
 
 597 
 
 99 
 
 33 
 
 33 
 
 Travelling Coiirts, 
 
 subordinate to and 
 
 including 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 Estimated 
 No. of 
 
 contested 
 Cases. 
 
 No. of days 
 required 
 
 at 20 cases 
 per day. 
 
 Additional 
 
 Salary 
 
 payable to 
 
 Kegistrar as 
 
 Travelling 
 
 Judge. 
 
 Exeter 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 8 
 
 1,008 
 1,312-8 
 906-2 
 
 50-4 
 
 65-64 
 
 45-31 
 
 £ 
 252 
 328-2 
 226-55 
 
 Plymouth 
 
 Truro 
 
 
 Total 
 
 26 
 
 3,227 
 
 161-35 
 
 806-76 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CIRCTJIT. 
 
 Principal Local Courts. 
 
 
 Courts 
 
 Judges 
 
 Days 
 available 
 
 for 
 Common 
 
 Law. 
 
 Estima- 
 
 tedNo.of 
 
 Common 
 
 Law 
 
 Causes. 
 
 Aver- 
 age 
 per 
 
 Diem. 
 
 Admi- 
 ralty 
 Days. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 Administra- 
 tive, &c., 
 Days. 
 
 District No. 1 . . 
 District No. 2.. 
 District No. 3.. 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 110 
 
 110 
 
 99 
 
 344 
 593 
 597 
 
 3 
 
 5-4 
 
 6 
 
 22 
 22 
 33 
 
 33 
 33 
 33 
 
 Total .... 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 319 
 
 1,534 
 
 4-8 
 
 77 
 
 99 
 
 Travelling Courts. 
 
 
 No. of 
 Courts. 
 
 No. of 
 Registrar 
 Judges. 
 
 Days of 
 
 sitting. 
 
 District No. I 
 
 24 
 22 
 26 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 94-9 
 166-53 
 161-35 
 
 District No. 2 
 
 District No. 3 
 
 
 Total 
 
 72 
 
 9 
 
 422-78
 
 143 
 
 APPENDIX D. 
 
 Part I. — Scheme for the temporary employment of the twenty-seven Judges 
 not made Prmcipal Local Judges, as Judges of the Travelling Courts, 
 showing the estimated No. of days' work to be required from each Judge. 
 
 
 
 
 Average No. of days' 
 
 Circuit. 
 
 Days of Sitting, 
 
 No. of Judges. 
 
 work required 
 
 
 
 
 of each Judge. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 434-74 
 
 3 
 
 144-91 
 
 „ 4. 
 
 578-85 
 
 4 
 
 144-71 
 
 ., 5- 
 
 441 -3 L 
 
 3 
 
 147-1 
 
 „ 6. 
 
 704-76 
 
 5 
 
 140-95 
 
 ,, 7. 
 
 245-42 
 
 2 
 
 122-71 
 
 „ 8. 
 
 660-36 
 
 4 
 
 1659 
 
 ,, y. 
 
 388-74 
 
 3 
 
 129-58 
 
 „ 10. 
 
 422-78 
 
 3 
 
 140-92 
 
 TOTAT 
 
 3,876-90 
 
 27 
 
 143-59 
 
 Part II. — Table showing the comparative cost of the Salaries of the present 
 Judges and of the Salaries of the Proposed Principal I^ocal Judges at 
 £2,000-, plus the additional Salaries to Registrars. See text p. 55. 
 
 
 Additional Salary payable to 
 
 
 
 
 Circuit 
 
 
 Registrars. 
 
 
 Judges' 
 Salaries. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Present Cost. 
 
 
 District 1. 
 
 District 2. 
 
 District 3. 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 No. 1 
 
 879-0 
 
 331-55 
 
 962-55 
 
 6,000 
 
 8,173-7 
 
 
 „ 2 
 
 1,726-3 
 
 847-3 
 
 741-15 
 
 0,000 
 
 9,314-75 
 
 Fifty-seven 
 
 „ 3 
 
 1,117 
 
 1,123-5 
 
 695-25 
 
 6,000 
 
 8,935-75 
 
 Judges of County 
 
 „ 4 
 
 599-4 
 
 1,414-5 
 
 880-35 
 
 6,000 
 
 8,894-25 
 
 Courts at 
 
 „ 5 
 
 580-9 
 
 933-5 
 
 692-15 
 
 6,000 
 
 8,206-55 
 
 £1,500 each 
 
 „ 6 
 
 1,496-1 
 
 1,184-8 
 
 842-9 
 
 6,000 
 
 9,523 -S 
 
 without reckoning 
 
 ,. 7 
 
 427-7 
 
 388-3 
 
 411-1 
 
 6,000 
 
 7,2-27-1 
 
 those paid 
 
 » 8 
 
 798-15 
 
 892-4 
 
 1,611-25* 
 
 6,000 
 
 9,301-8 
 
 £1,800. 
 
 „ 9 
 
 433 
 
 795-7 
 
 715 
 
 6,000 
 
 7, 9-1 3 -7 
 
 
 » 10 
 
 474-5 
 
 832-65 
 
 806-75 
 
 6,000 
 
 8,113-9 
 
 
 Totals. 
 
 8,532-05 
 
 8,744-2 
 
 8,358-45 
 
 00,000 
 
 85,035-3 t 
 
 £85,500 
 
 * In the summary of the Travelling Courts at p. 128, for 698-35 read 696-35, and for 1,613-25 
 read 1,611-25. 
 
 t There is a trifling error in the figures at p. 31, /./. 37, 42, and p. 62, l-l- 38, 42, but which can 
 easily be corrected by reference to this column.
 
 144 
 APPENDIX E. 
 
 N.B. — These forms are only intended as specimens. If would he a 
 mere waste of labour to attempt to 2:>Tepare an exhaustive list. 
 
 Those jDarts printed in Roman typte are intended to he printed, those 
 in Italics to he filled in in ivriting. 
 
 SUGGESTED EOEMS OF PEOCEEDINGS. 
 I. 
 
 Pboceedings before Commissioners to take Admissions. 
 
 1.— MEMOEANDUM OF ADMISSION OF A DEBT. 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, Admission 
 
 Principal Local Coui't, Warwick, E. 520. 
 
 ( Abel Jones, creditor, 
 
 Between -^ and 
 
 ( William Jenkins, debtor. 
 Be it remembered that on the 10th day of September, A.D. 1877, 
 personally [(or) by Jane his wife, (or) by Isaac Maries, of the City of 
 Coventry, accountant, of whose lawful authority to make this admission 
 I am duly satisfied on oath] came and appeared before me William 
 Jenkins of Kineton, in the County of Warwick, labourer, and acknow- 
 ledged himself to owe to Ahel Jones, of Kineton, aforesaid, grocer, the 
 sum of £5 3s. 6d. for goods sup^jlied to him hy the said Ahel Jones in 
 the ivay of his trade hetween the 5fh day of August and the 25th day 
 of December, 1872, [(or) for the balance of all accounts between them 
 down to and including the 1st day of January last'\ and consented that 
 judgment should be entered against him in the said Court for the pay- 
 ment of the said sum of £5 8s. 6d., together with the sum of .^s. 6d. 
 the costs of taking and recording this admission, making together the 
 sum of £5 8s. Ocl. by eqiial monthly instalments of 4-S., the first of such 
 instalments to be paid on the 1st day of October next, and the sub- 
 sequent instalments on the 1st day of every succeeding calendar month. 
 And also that the said Ahel Jones on the day and year aforesaid, 
 personally came and appeared before me and (or) [by writing under his 
 hand of the genuineness of which I am duly satisfied on oath] [con- 
 sented to accept payment of the said debt by the instalments offered] 
 (or) [alleged that the said debtor was and is well able to pay the -whole 
 of the said debt on or before the 1st day of October next,] (or) [alleged 
 that the said debtor is well able to pay the said debt by instalments of 
 8s. a month.] 
 
 Taken before me at Kineton, in the County of Warwick, the 
 day and year first above written. 
 
 Jonathan Swift, 
 A Commissioner for taking Admissions in the 
 County Court of Warwicksliire. 
 Address of the Creditor — Address of the debtor — 
 
 Abel Jones, William Jenkins, 
 
 116, High Street, Court No. 1, Sheep Street, 
 
 Kineton. ■ Kineton.
 
 145 
 
 Notice to Admitting Debtors. 
 
 The amount which you have above consented to pay must be paid or 
 transmitted to the Registrar, at the County Court Office, Warwick. 
 If you cannot conveniently attend there you may pay it into any Post 
 Office Savings' Bank to the credit of " The Registrar, County Court 
 Office, Warwick," or into any post office at which money orders are 
 issued, and in either case the Postmaster is authorised to give you a 
 receipt. But whenever you make any payment in this proceeding 
 anywhere YOU MUST BRING THIS PAPER WITH YOU TO 
 BE RECEIPTED, otherwise your money will not be received, and 
 you will be liable to have your goods seized, and will be put to much 
 other trouble and expense. 
 Office hours, &c., &c. 
 
 Amount of Debt and Costs. 
 
 £5 8s. 
 
 Od. 
 
 Payable by instalments of 4s. 
 071 the 1st day of every 
 calendar month, beginning 
 with the \st October, 1877. 
 
 Date of Receipt and Stamp 
 of Receivinor Officer. 
 
 2.— NOTICE BY REGISTRAR TO DEBTOR WHERE THE 
 CREDITOR APPEARS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER 
 AND OBJECTS TO ACCEPT PAYMENT BY THE 
 INSTALMENTS OFFERED BY THE DEBTOR. 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, Admission 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick. E. 520. 
 
 [ Abel Jones, creditor. 
 Between < and 
 
 ( William Jenkins, debtor. 
 Debt and costs — £5 8s. Od. 
 Debtor's offer — ^. a month. 
 To the admitting Debtor. 
 Take notice that your above-named creditor refuses to accept pay- 
 ment of the above-mentioned debt by the instalments which you offer 
 and requires that you should be ordered to pay the same \on or before 
 the 1st dmj of October next^ (or) [by instalments of 8s. a month, 
 beginning on the 1st day of October next.] 
 
 If you have any cause to show why you should not pay your debt 
 in the manner and at the time required by your creditor, you must 
 send to me by post, addressed to " The Registrar, County Court 
 Office, Warwick," prepaid, an affidavit stating the following matters — 
 
 1. Your age. 
 
 2. Whether you arc married, and if married, what number of 
 
 children you have dependent on you for support.
 
 146 
 
 3. What is your profession, trade, or employment, and what 
 
 your usual earnings thereat. 
 
 4. "Whether you have any property of any description hesides 
 
 the clothes of yourself and family, the tools of your trade, 
 and the furniture of your house, and if you have what it 
 is, and whether suhject to any charge. 
 
 5. Any special reasons you may have for ohjecting to pay in 
 
 the manner required hy your creditor. 
 Forms of affidavit may he had at any post office or at the 
 office of any Commissioner for taking Acknowledgments 
 in the County Court (price Id.), and may he sworn hefore 
 any Magistrate or any Commissioner for taking Affidavits 
 in the High Court of Justice, or Admissions in any 
 County Court. If you do not swear and forward the 
 required affidavit, an order will he made on you for the 
 payment of [the sum of £5 8s. Od. on or before the 1st day 
 of October next] (or) [of the above amount by instalments 
 of 8s. a month beginning on the 1st October next.] 
 Dated, &c. 
 
 Yours &c. 
 
 ' B.''CAMPBELL, Registrar. 
 Hours of attendance, &c., &c. 
 
 3.— FOEM OF AFFIDAVIT BY DEBTOR. 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, Admission 
 
 Principal Local Court, War-\vick. E. 520. 
 
 ( Abel Jones, creditor. 
 Between I and 
 
 ( William Jenkins, dehtor, 
 
 I, William Jenkins, the ahove-named dehtor, make oath and say 
 as follows : — 
 
 1. I am 50 years old. 
 
 2. I am a married man and have Jive children dependent on 
 
 me for support. 
 
 3. I am by profession, trade, or employment, wagoner to Mr. 
 
 Court, of Groves End, Kineton. 
 
 4. My usual earnings are 16s. a weelc. 
 
 5. I have no property of any description except the clothes of 
 
 myself and family, my tools, and the furniture of my 
 house, and nothing else. 
 
 6. I object to pay in the manner required by my creditor for 
 
 the special reason following, that is to say. That I have 
 been laid up for several weeks in the summer icith typhus
 
 147 
 
 fever, and lost my harvest, and that my tuife is now ill 
 ivith typhus fever. 
 
 Tlie mark of 
 Sworn by the above-named deponent X 
 
 before me who am satisfied that he William Jenkins. 
 
 understands the contents of this 
 
 affidavit this 14-th day of September, 
 
 1S77, at Kineton, in the County of 
 
 Wanoick. 
 
 Alfred Delamere, 
 
 Justice of the Peace for the County of Wanoick. 
 
 !N".B. — The Commissioner or Magistrate taking this affidavit must 
 
 satisfy himself that the deponent clearly understands its contents. 
 
 He should refuse to swear the deponent if it is so filled up as to be 
 
 unintelligible, or if the distinguishing letter and number are omitted. 
 
 4.— AFFIDAVIT BY AGENT 0^ BEHALF OF DEBTOE. 
 (This would be the same mutatis mutandis as Form 3. 
 
 5.— NOTICE OF AFFIDAVIT TO BE SENT BY EEGISTEAE 
 TO CEEDITOE. 
 
 In the County Court of "Warwickshire, Admission 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick, E, 520. 
 
 ( Abel Jones, creditor, 
 Between < and 
 
 ( William Jenkins, debtor. 
 To the above-named creditor. 
 
 Take notice that the above-named debtor has filed an affidavit that 
 he is a married man ivith five children dependent on him, that he is 
 wagoner to Mr. Court, of Grove's End, Kineton, at 16s. a loeek, and 
 has no property except his clothes, tools, and furniture, and objects to 
 pay his debt in the manner required by you on the ground that he has 
 been laid up) for several weeks in the summer ivith typhus fever of 
 which his wife is now ill. 
 
 Unless you post prepaid addressed to the Eegistrar, County Court 
 Office, Warwick, on or before the 17th didij oi September next, a statement 
 signed by you and showing some good cause to the contrary, an order 
 will be made on the debtor to pay you the sum of £5 8s. Od. by equal 
 monthly instalments of 4s., begin7iing on the 1st day of October now 
 next. Your statement must be legibly marked with the word, letter, 
 and number, " Admission E. 620," or it wiU not be attended to. — 
 Dated, &c. 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Eegistrar. 
 Hours of attendance, &c.
 
 148 
 
 6.— STATEMENT OF CREDITOE IN REPLY. 
 
 Admission E. 520. 
 Sir, 16th September, 1877. 
 
 It's all a lie about Jenkins having the fever ; and I don't believe 
 he has a child at home. I loon't take less than 8s. a month. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Abel Jones. 
 
 7.— NOTICE OF ADMITTING DEBTOR TO ATTEND AND 
 BE EXAMINED AS TO HIS MEANS OF PAYMENT. 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, Admission 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick. E. 520. 
 
 i Abel Jones, creditor, 
 Between <! and 
 
 ( William Jenkins, debtor. 
 Admitted debt and costs £5 8s. Od. 
 Subsequent costs. (Here state amount.) 
 To the above-named debtor. 
 
 You are hereby summoned to attend at \rny Office Jury Street, 
 Warwick, on Saturday, the 22nd day of September instant, at twelve 
 o'clock at noon] (or) [a Court to be holden at the Toicn Hall, Stratjord- 
 on-Avon, on Wednesday, the 19th day of Septeiyiber instant, at ten 
 o'clock in the forenoon] to be examined on oath touching your means 
 of satisfying the above-mentioned debt. If you fail to attend you 
 will be ordered to pay the same and any further costs which the 
 plaintiff may have incurred [on or before the 1st day of October next,] 
 (or) [by instalments of 8s. a month beginning the 1st day of October 
 next. — Dated the 17th day of September, 1877. 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Registrar. 
 Hours of attendance, &c. 
 
 8.— CORRESPONDING NOTICE TO CREDITOR. 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, Admission 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick. E. 520. 
 
 i Abel Jones, creditor, 
 Between ■< and 
 
 ( William Jenkins, debtor. 
 Admitted debt and costs, £5 8s. Od. 
 Subsequent costs. (Here state amount.) 
 To the above-named creditor. 
 
 Take notice that the above-named debtor has been summoned to 
 attend [at my office, Jury Street, Warwick, on Saturday, the 22nd day 
 of September instant, at 12 o'clock at noon] or [at a Court to be 
 holden at the Town Hall, Stratford-on-Avon, on Wednesday, the I9th 
 day of September instant,] to be examined touching his means of 
 satisfying the above-mentioned debt, when and where you must
 
 149 
 
 attend by yoiirself, your solicitor, or agent, if you desire to insist on 
 any mode of payment other than that offered by the debtor. Dated 
 the inh day of September, 1877. 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Eegistrar. 
 Hours of attendance, &c. 
 
 9.— OEDER BY EEGISTRAR FOR PAYMEI!^'T. 
 
 In the County Court of "Warwickshire, Admission 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick. E. 520 
 
 C Abel Jones, creditor, 
 Between -< and 
 
 ( William Jenkins, debtor. 
 Admitted debt and costs, £5 8s. Od. 
 Subsequent costs. (Here state amount.) 
 
 Upon reading the admission of the above-named debtor, dated the 
 lOtli day of September, 1877 [and his affidavit sworn the 14th day 
 of September, 1877, and the statement of the above-named creditor in 
 answer thereto, and upon hearing the parties, their agents, and wit- 
 nesses] it is adjudged that the above-named debtor do pay to the 
 Registrar of this Court the above-admitted amount of £ (here state 
 amount), together with subsequent costs {here state amount), making 
 together the sum of £ (here state amount), by equal monthly instal- 
 ments of 6s. ; the first of such instalments to be paid on or before the 
 1st day of October next, and the subsequent instalments on the 1st day 
 of every succeeding calendar month. — Dated the ^^nd day of 
 September, 1877. 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Registrar. 
 
 NOTICE TO THE DEBTOR. 
 
 (Same as at foot of Admission.) 
 
 II. 
 
 Contentious Proceedings. 
 
 10.— APPLICATION TO ENTER AN ACTION. 
 
 I apply to enter an action in the County Court of Warwickshire, 
 
 principal Local Court, Warwick, as below : — 
 
 Christian and surname, address and 
 occupation, and sex of plaintiff in 
 full. 
 
 Age of plaintiff. 
 
 Name and address of plaintiff's 
 agent or solicitor, if any. 
 
 What the action is for. If for a 
 debt, full particulars showing all the 
 items must be annexed. If for 
 damages, the complaint, -with dates, 
 must be stated as concisely as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Amoimt of damages, or nature of 
 relief other than damages claimed. 
 
 John Richards, Emseote, Wartoick, 
 Butcher. Male. 
 
 50. 
 None. 
 
 Simpkins drove his gig against my 
 cart on the night of luesday last, 
 lamed my horse, and broke the shaft of 
 my cart. 
 
 £10.
 
 150 
 
 Name, address, and occupation of 
 some person willing to act as the next 
 friend of the plaintiff and be respon- 
 sible for his costs. 
 
 Name, address, and occupation and 
 sex of the defendant so far as 
 known. 
 
 Age of defendant so far as known. 
 
 Name, address, and occupation of 
 the parent, guardian, or nearest rela- 
 tion of the defendant, so far as known. 
 
 If you are suing in respect of a 
 right assigned to you by a third 
 person, the name, address, and occu- 
 pation of that person. 
 
 None. 
 
 Thomas Simpkins, 100, Thomas 
 Street, Warwick, Lawyer's Clerk. 
 Male. 
 
 About 17. 
 
 Utik7ioton. 
 
 None. 
 
 Signature of plaintiff or his solicitor, 
 
 JOHN RICHARDS. 
 Dated the Is^ day of September, 1877. 
 
 NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF. 
 
 (To he detached and retained by the Plaintiff.) 
 
 This application must be delivered, or sent by post prepaid, addressed 
 to The Eegistrar, County Court Office, Warwick, accompanied by a 
 fee of in the £ on the amount of debt or damages claimed. 
 
 If you are unable to state any of the particulars required above 
 from ignorance, write the word " Unknown " opposite to the parti- 
 culars you cannot give. 
 
 If you state a frivolous or unintelligible claim, or do not amiex full 
 particulars with dates and items of any debt you claim, no attention 
 will be paid to this application. You are recommended to give credit 
 for any set-off or cross-claim which the defendant has against you. 
 
 Any money which may be recovered in the action will not be paid 
 direct to you but into Court, where you may either receive it in cas h, 
 or have it transferred to your credit at a post office savings bank, or 
 remitted to you by post office order, less the commission, as you 
 prefer. 
 
 If you change your address at any time before you have been 
 satisfied the whole of your claim, or before the action is otherwise 
 brought to an end, you must keep the Eegistrar acquainted with your 
 new address, or you will be liable to incur great trouble and expiense. 
 
 All enquiries must be made personally, or by post-letter prepaid 
 and enclosing a stamped directed envelope to the Eegistrar. 
 
 Office, Jury Street, Warwick. Hours of attendance, &c., &c.
 
 151 
 
 11.— MOOTTION SEEVED ON THE DEFENDANT 
 PEESONALLY. 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick. 
 
 / John Richards, plaintiff, Umscote, Warwick, 
 
 J Thomas SimpMns, defendant, 100, Thomas 
 V Street, Warwick, Solicitor's Clerk. 
 To the defendant,— E. 521 
 
 You are hereby warned that an action has heen entered against you 
 in this Court by the plaintiff in respect of a claim, the particulars 
 whereof are hereto annexed. 
 
 And take notice that if you intend to defend the action, you must 
 answer the questions below either now, by word of mouth, or by 
 causing to be sent by post prepaid on or before day next 
 
 your answers in writing thereto, addressed to The Eegistrar, County 
 Court Office, Warwick. — Dated the 1st day of September, IST?*. 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Eegistrar. 
 
 Costs already incurred. (Here state amount.) 
 Particulars annexed, — 
 
 The plaintiff alleges that on the 11th day of August, 1877, the 
 defendant negligently drove a gig against his cart, lamed his horse, 
 and broke the shaft of his cart. And he claims £10 as damages. 
 
 Questions to be answered by the 
 Defendant. 
 
 1. Do you deny that the alleged 
 injury to the plaintiff ever happened 
 at all ? 
 
 2. Do you deny that you are the 
 person who did the act complained 
 of? 
 
 3. Do you say that the plaintiif was 
 the person in fault ? 
 
 4. Have you anything to allege in 
 justification or excuse ? 
 
 6. Do you say that the claim is 
 more than six years old ? 
 
 6. Do you say that you are now or 
 were a married woman ? If so, state 
 name, address, and occupation of youj 
 husband. 
 
 7. Has the plaintiff had satisfaction 
 for the damages or relief claimed and 
 how? 
 
 8. Have you any and what cross- 
 claim against the plaintiff ? If it is a 
 debt you must make out and annex a 
 bill, showing dates and items. 
 
 9. Have you any other defence to 
 set up ? 
 
 Defendant's answers. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Yes. The plaintiff drove up against 
 me, and was on his wrong side. 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 The plaintiff did £15 worth of 
 damage to my gig. I claim- this. 
 
 The plaintiff was drunk and\ driving 
 furiously.
 
 152 
 
 Questions to be answered by the 
 Defendant. 
 
 Defendant's answers. 
 
 10. Are you ■willing to pay anything 
 into Court? By paying money in 
 satisfaction to the Registrar within 
 [four] days from this you -^ill save 
 further costs, ujiless the plaintiff 
 recovers agaiast you a larger sum than 
 
 Xo. 
 
 you so pay. 
 
 11. Do you wish the cause to be 
 tried by a jury? 
 
 12. Do you desire to appear by your- 
 self or by guardian ? 
 
 Xo. 
 
 By myself 
 
 The above questions M'ere put to 
 the defendant by me, 
 
 Israel Hutchins, BaUiif. 
 
 Thomas Si))}2}7cins, Defeiidant, 
 100, Thomas Street, Wartoick. 
 
 (To be endorsed thus) : 
 ^etyeA. personally the Zrd day of September, 1877, 
 
 ISRAEL HUTCHINS, Bailiff. 
 
 NOTICE TO DYF^'^DKET^.— IMPORTANT. 
 
 If you fail to answer the above questions as required, judgment -will 
 be given against you without hearing you. 
 
 AH money paid on account of this action must be paid to the 
 Eegistrar, but any payment you have to make to him may be made, 
 and a receipt for the amount paid obtained at any money order oflfice 
 or post office sa^dngs' bank, upon production op this paper and 
 PATJLENT of A SMALL FEE, or you may pay or send the money in any 
 manner you like to the Eegistrar, provided that every sum of money 
 paid is accompanied with a paper on which is legibly written your 
 name and the letter and Xo. E. 521, and a statement of the amount 
 of the money paid, and the purpose for which it is to be received. 
 
 The Eegistrar's office is at jS'o. Jury Street, Warwick. If you 
 require any further information as to the mode of proceeding, you 
 must apply there personally or by letter addressed to the Eegistrar, 
 prepaid and enclosing a stamped envelope addressed to you. 
 
 All communications to the Eegistrar in this action must be marked 
 plainly with the letter and No. E. 521, or they will not be 
 attended to. 
 
 If you change your address at any time during the progress of this 
 action, you must keep the Eegistrar informed of such change, other- 
 wise you may have judgment against you in your absence, and be put 
 to great trouble and expense. 
 
 Hours of attendance, &c.
 
 153 
 
 12.— I^OTICE OF DEFENCE, TO BE SENT BY POST 
 TO PLAINTIFF. 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, 
 
 Principal Local Court, War\7ick. E. 521. 
 
 ( John Richards, plaintitf, 
 Between < and 
 
 ( Thomas Simpkins, defendant. 
 
 To the plaintiif, — 
 
 Take notice that the defendant alleges that the injury of which you 
 complain happened through your own fault ; that you were drunk, o?i 
 your lorong side of the road, and drove furiously against the 
 defendant, and did him damage to the amount of Slo, which he 
 claims against you. No further statement is required from you unless 
 you admit the truth of any part of the defendant's defence. If you 
 do admit it, you ^vill save yourself from some costs by sending your 
 admission to the Registrar by post, or delivering it at his ofl&ce forth- 
 with. Dated, &c, 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Registrar. 
 
 N.B. — Mark you reply with the letter and No. E. 521, or it will 
 not be attended to. 
 
 13.— RECORD FOR TRIAL. 
 
 (Jury ordered hy the Court.) 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick. E. 521. 
 
 i John Richards, plaintiff, 
 Between I and 
 
 ( Thomas Simpkins, defendant. 
 
 This cause will be tried at a Court to be holden at the Shirehall, 
 Warwick, on Tuesday, the day of instant, at 10 
 
 o'clock in the forenoon, before the Jiidge of the Principal Local Court 
 and a jury, when and where the parties are hereby required to attend 
 and to produce ail their evidence. 
 
 The question to be tried will be lohether the plaintiff or the 
 defendant was in fault, and the amount of damages, if any, sustained. 
 
 Costs already incurred. (Here state amount. J 
 
 Dated the day of 1877. 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Registrar. 
 
 To the plaintiff and defendant, — 
 
 Notice. — [This will be verbatim the same as ths notice at the foot 
 of the specimen record for trial, given at page 41. It is not therefore 
 repeated here.]
 
 154 
 
 U.—MOMTION" mjACTION FOE TEESPASS TO LAND. 
 
 (Same as form 11.) E. 522. 
 
 Particulars annexed, — 
 
 The plaintiff alleges that on the 15th day of March last, and on 
 several other occasions since then, you trespassed on land of his, situate 
 in the parish of Kineton, in this county, called the Big Field, by 
 allowing your cattle to stray thereon. And he claims £10 as damages. 
 
 Questions to be answered by the 
 Defendant. 
 
 1, 2, 3. Same as form 11. 
 
 4. Do you say that the land alleged 
 to have been trespassed on was not 
 the plaintiff's ? 
 
 5. Do you claim any right over or 
 in the land yourseK, and if so, what 
 right? 
 
 6. Did you do the act complained 
 of by anyone's orders, and if so, by 
 whose ? 
 
 7. Have you anything else to allege 
 in justification or excuse ? 
 
 7 to 14. Same as 6 to 12 in form 
 No. 11. 
 
 Defendant's answers. 
 
 To 1 and 2, No ;' to 3, It was the 
 2}laintiff's fault for not keeping up his 
 fence. 
 
 No. 
 
 The plaintiff ought to keep the fence 
 
 in order. 
 
 No. 
 
 It was the plaintiff's fence was out 
 of order, and that was his fault. 
 No. 
 
 Notice at foot same as No. 11. 
 
 15.— MONITION IN EJECTMENT. 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick, 
 
 I" John Doe, plaintiff, 
 Between < and 
 
 ( Richard Roe, defendant. 
 
 To the defendant,— E. 523. 
 
 You are hereby warned that an action of ejectment has been entered 
 against you in this Court by the above-named plaintiff, whereby the 
 plaintiff seeks to recover possession of a house and garden, called 
 Meadow Bank, situate at the parish of Kineton, in the county of 
 Warwick, and to eject you and all other persons therefrom. And that 
 the plaintiff also claims against you the sum of £10 as damages, for 
 your having wrongfully kept him out of possession since the 25th day 
 of March last. And take notice, that unless you give to the person 
 serving this monition now, or to the Eegistrar on or before the 5th 
 day of Septemler next, your correct postal address and notice that 
 you intend to defend this action, or that you are not in possession of 
 and disclaim aU right and title to the premises claimed, you will be
 
 155 
 
 turned out of possession and ordered to pay the damages claimed and 
 costs. (Here state amount.) 
 
 Dated the 1st day of Seiitemher, 1877. 
 
 Costs already incurred. (Here state amount.) 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Eegistrar. 
 
 NOTICE TO THE J)Y.'FY.'^J)K^T.— IMPORTANT. 
 
 The Eegistrar's office is at Jiiry Street, "Warwick. If you 
 
 require any further information as to the mode of proceeding, you 
 must apply there personally or by letter addressed to the Eegistrar, 
 prepaid and enclosing a stamped envelope addressed to you. 
 
 All communications to the Eegistrar in this action must be marked 
 plainly with the letter and number E 523, or they wiU not be 
 attended to. 
 
 If you sign and forward to the Eegistrar a disclaimer of title to the 
 premises claimed, you will not be liable to any costs or damages unless 
 the plaintiff proves that you were in possession as he alleges you were. 
 
 If you desire the cause to be tried by a jury, you must send or give 
 to the Eegistrar, on or before the day of next, 
 
 notice to that effect, accompanied by a fee of five shillings. 
 
 If you change your address, &c. 
 
 Hours of attendance, &c. 
 
 16._N0TICE OF INTENTION" TO DEFEND TO BE 
 DELIVEEED TO THE DEFENDANT IN BLANK WITH 
 THE MONITION, AND EETUENED BY HIM FILLED 
 UP TO THE SEEVING BAILIFF OE THE EEGISTEAE. 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire, E. 523. 
 
 Principal Local Court, Warwick. 
 
 ( John Doe, plaintiff, 
 Between < and 
 
 ( Richard Roe, defendant. 
 I intend to defend for the whole of the premises claimed. 
 Dated the day of 187 
 
 Richard Roe, defendant. 
 
 Meadow BanJc, Kineton. 
 
 I disclaim all title to the premises claimed, and deny that I was in 
 possession as alleged. 
 
 Dated the day of 187 
 
 Richard Roe, defendant, 
 
 Meadow BanJc, Kineton. 
 
 17.— NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF. 
 
 [Heading as above.] — Take notice that the defendant defends for the 
 whole of the premises claimed.
 
 t 
 
 156 
 
 18.— MOmTIO:N" IN" DOWEE OE FEEEBENCH. 
 
 [Heading as above.] — You are hereby warned that an action has been 
 entered against you in this Court by the above-named plaintiff, 
 whereby she claims to have assigned to her one equal third part of the 
 property described in the particulars hereto annexed, out of which she 
 claims to be entitled to [dower] (or) [freehench according to the custom 
 of the manor of Kineton] as the widow of Samuel Sharp, deceased. 
 And take notice, &c. 
 
 B. CAMPBELL, Eegistrar. 
 
 Questions to be answered by 
 Defendant. 
 
 1. Do you deny that the plaintiff is 
 the lawful widow of Samuel Sharp, 
 deceased ? 
 
 2. Do you allege that Samuel Sharp, 
 deceased, had not at the time of his 
 death such an interest in the property 
 described in the particulars as would 
 entitle his widow to the third part 
 claimed by the plaintiff f 
 
 3. Have you any other ground of 
 defence ? 
 
 (Signature of Bailiff ). 
 
 Defendant's answers. 
 
 She loas not his wife, but his kept 
 woman. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 Other forms could be readily framed from the above. Those 
 praying equitable relief would not differ materially in substance from 
 those given in the schedule to the Consolidated Orders, 1875. 
 
 19._P0ST OFFICE EECEIPT WHEEE ^-OT GIVERS' 0^ 
 JUDGMENT OE ADMISSION PAPEE. 
 
 In the County Court of Warwickshire. E. 525. 
 
 (A. B., plaintiff, 
 
 Between 
 
 and 
 
 ( C. D., defendant. 
 
 Received of the defendant the sum 
 of £5 Os. Od. on account of moneys 
 ordered to be paid into Court in this 
 cause. 
 
 The receipt to be given on the judgment paper will be the same as that in 
 form 1 ante. 
 
 Printed by Deighton and Son, Lithographers, &c., 53, High Street, "Worcester.