« AnteriorContinuar »
concurred in the findings on the issues of fact. Taking t three classes of suits in order, is the operation of the 1 ciple I have proposed unreasonable, or likely to be uns Surely, if the application of the pecuniary mode of limita is justifiable at all, it may be well applied to suits below in value, so as to prevent the facts being discussed before Court here for, always the third, and for generally the fou time in the course of the litigation.
Not much objection can, I think, be made as to operation of the restriction upon the second class of s in value between 5001. and 1000l. At present special 1 must be given to admit an appeal in such a suit at all, it would not be unreasonable to lay it down as a rule only the special importance of the questions of law invo can justify the admission of the appeal. But supposing rule to be, as I have suggested it should be, that in suit this value the regular appeal should lie to the High Co the whole case upon the facts, as well as the law, would be open on the appeal before the Judicial Committee, exc ing only when and so far as the High Court had concu with the lower court in its findings upon the issues of fact.
There remains only the first class of suits, amounting value to 10001. It has, I believe, been discussed in country, whether it would not be advisable to restrict appeals from India to appeals upon the law. It is urį I believe, in favour of the proposal that in suits f India thé evidence is almost entirely that of foreigi whose languages and manners are unknown to the juo of the court in this country; that the courts in India wl have tried the suits are, on the contrary, presided over judges who, if not natives of the country, are alınost alw men who have spent many years there, and are thoroug acquainted with the languages and habits of the people, further, that it is already a maxim of the Judicial Commit never, except under very peculiar circumstances, to reve a judgment of the courts in India upon the facts, and t to restrict the right of appeal to questions of law wo not be any practical limitation of the existing right. Th who oppose this proposal, and desire to retain in its entir the present right of appeal upon the whole case, as well fa as law, allege that it is necessary, for the sake of secur against injustice, to do so, as not unfrequently, even in High Courts, the duty of sifting the evidence is perforn in a very perfunctory manner, and they assert that app late courts in India are found by experience often to d with evidence in a one-sided and unsatisfactory manner, that it is of frequent occurrence that the Judicial Commit restores the judgment of the Court of First Instance up the facts, in reversal of the view of the appellate courtIt is undeniable that instances can be produced in support of these latter arguments, though, like most thorough-going arguments, they are a good deal overdrawn.
It is true that appellate courts in India, presided over by a single judge, often differ from the Court of First Instance on issues of fact upon grounds that are most unsatisfactory. The High Courts in India know and feel this perfectly, and it is for this very reason that I have urged the necessity of altering the procedure in India as to special appeals, and allowing a further appeal upon the facts where the first appellate court has differed in its view of the evidence from the Court of First Instance. One consequence of the existing procedure is that suits are often appealed home where the facts are open again to discussion, in which the High Courts would have done complete justice had not their hands been tied by the law as to special appeals, and their judgment is reversed in this country, and an apparent slur cast upon the efficiency of the High Courts which is really wholly undeserved. It is also true that the Bar of the High Courts is not equal to that of the Judicial Committee, and a burden is sometimes cast upon the judges which would in reality be borne by the Bar in this country; the evidence is sometimes imperfectly laid before the High Courts, but I can answer for it that the judges are then in the habit of studying in private the evidence that ought to have been discussed before them in public. This is a disadvantage, no doubt, but in suits amounting to 10001. in value, it is rare indeed that the parties do not retain efficient and conscientious advocates.
A special circumstance has recently lent force to these arguments. The Government in India, stimulated by the financial panic, has of late been far too eager to reduce the number of judges in the several High Courts in India. In ope at least of those courts-and that the most importantthe judges have been unduly urged to regard the reduction of the files as the one great object to be kept in view, and hasty decisions have, as usual, begot increase of litigation in the Court of Appeal here. This spirit of false economy, for which this country is now paying in new judicial salaries, still exists in India, but it is a temporary and removable cause of evil. With High Courts not unfairly overworked, it is unreasonable to suppose that the facts in suits amounting to 10001, in value would not be fully discussed at the Bar, and carefully considered by the Bench. If two or more judges of a High Court have fully concurred with the judge of a Zillah Court in their view of the facts in a case, it seems a needless precaution to leave all the facts open to further discussion in the Court of Appeal here. It seems a reasoi able and safe course to check undue litigation by restrictin in such cases the right of further appeal to the law of th case. Those least disposed to regard favourably the ef ciency of the courts in India, must admit that the judg are experienced in dealing with native evidence; and if v secure a certain concurrence of judgment upon the eviden in the courts there, we may, I consider, reasonably re satisfied with the correctness of the conclusions arrived a The restriction upon the right of appeal which I have no suggested does not involve any sweeping or radical chan of system; and if it should not materially affect the numb of appeals to the court in this country (though I confident expect that it would have this effect), it will certainly, a large number of cases, greatly diminish the time necessa for their discussion and disposal.
HE Anglo-American question of copyright is the subje
of this article, revived as that question has bee although probably not much_advanced, by the epistola skirmishing of American and English publishers and autho which took place in the months of September, Octob and November last, upon the pages of our contempora the Times. Our contemporary himself deigned, on several occasions, to interpose his good offices in the strif exhibiting, however, on each occasion, the characteris one-sidedness of the English advocate, and not the evi balance of the international mediator. The affray was p voked by a random but offensive shot, fired from the Engl quarters, under the ambush of the pseudonyme or anony of " Traveller,” by some English gentleman, who, fancy he had conceived a witty thing, was not deterred by injustice of it from pronouncing it, and therefore bol taunted the Americans with the depredations of th “ literary Alabamas." Some brisk and heavy firing mediately ensued, a firing which was vigorously maintain on the side of the Americans, and as petulantly replied as it was pettishly provoked, upon the English part ; short, the only good English shots were directed agai the English side. The attack, we need not mention, is which has been long anticipated, and long premeditated ; : even apart, therefore, from the opprobrium of the epit
“ American pirates," by which the unknown traveller was
But it is not our purpose to pursue this matter in its
The question in dispute briefly stated is this—An English
At the same time, however, nations generally exercise