t

1mm

AND ,

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ADVERTISER.

W-

Va). 111.] I

COLONIAL LEGISLATURE.

FRIDAY, February 21.

TRIALS OF LOCAL ACTION!- (chate continued .)

Mr. Pope, in continuation,said, all local actions were to be tried in the places in which the causes ofsuch actions originated, and none but transitory actions were removeable, or could he carried from one county to unotlier._ It was clearly the duty of the Debtor to meet tpd pay his creditor at the place where the debt was contracted. ’lhe consideration that the Debtor ought to come to his Creditor, and abut the Creditor ought not to be compelled to hunt or pursue his «Debtor, from county to county, in order to bring his action of debt, Vitae a strong argument in favour ofthe law as it then stood. The “cvay-in which bustness in the County Courts was frequently, he I'ought not to say done, but left undone, was discreditable to the par- ties concerned. The ChiefJustice had a salary of £700 Sig. a year, Ind was, beSIdes,‘ allowed £100 a year to defray the expenses he might incur from its having become necessary for him, in hisjudicial capacrty, to visa King‘s and Prince Counties. Trials ought not to be postponed and decisions delayed by hasty adjournmeiits of the

‘-Court, to the inconvenience and loss of parties engaged in law suits,

as was now too often the case. Though not condemning the system ofthe administration ofjustice within the Colony, he could not re- frain from expressmg his disapprobation of the manner in which the system was made to work.‘

Mr. Iii: LACHEUR said there were two kinds ofactions, the one denominated local, and the other transitory. \Vhat he understood by load was, confined to a. place, immoceable ; and, by transitory, mot fized—moveable. Wherever a person should come from the wountry and take up goods on credit in Charlottetown, or elsewhere, as it might be, he should, in justice and equity, be required to make payment where the debt was contracted. But with regard to coal actionshsuch as actions for house rent, or rent ofland, as the person meaning, or being liable for such rent, could certainly not carry away either house or land, and as every particular affecting such a case, would be best known in the County in which the property for which such rent_was claimed lay, it would be an actual violation of ill-6 rules~ and prmciples ofjustice that such actions should be classified With transitory ones. Cases of replevin or ejectment were defined local ; than why, he asked, should actions for rent be tran- guary? Were they not ofa like nature, and should they not belong :to the some class? He certainly thought, when an engagement was entered into for a purchase of land, or a lease ofa quantity of land taken, and any action arose between .the parties to the sale or lease, relative to the land sold or leased, such action should be,brouvht in the Court of the County in which the land lay. a

Mr. RAE said the hon. and learned member for Charlottetown had expressed a doubt about his being comprehended by the House. He (Mr. Rae) believed there was Some truth in it. They were all astray. They could not'seetheir way ; and common sense could not easily clear up the mist in which they were lost. Lawyers, with their technical jargon, served only to increase their darkness and to per- plex them more. Yet, by a proper use ofthat light ol‘common sense which they possessed, it was necessary for them to open and clear a way for themselves. When Court Houses were built in King's and Prince CountIES, it Was generally expected that all trials respecting rents oflands, or purchases oflands, wouldbe tried where theilnnds lay and where rents accrued. Whatever distinction may be made by the laws of England between local and tran‘sitory actions, he was

mnvineed that, in this country, where the claim lav there should the trial be else. He admitted that, nrtlre law now stood, all actions strictly local were tried in the counties in which they arose, unless the venue were changed in consequence of an affidavit shewing a. sufficient cause for the removal ofthe trial to another county. On such an aflidavit‘s being made, it rested with the Court whether or not to break through the regulations which were usually observed. But that was not left to depend upon the common Law ; for there was an act, ifuuiepealed, (and he believed it was unrepealed) con- ferring such power upon the Judge, that, at discretion, he might move a trial from one end-ofthe Island to tho other. Thus, what with an affidavit stating that a fair trial cannot be had in the County wherein an action arises, and what with the special act enabling the Chief Justice to remove trials, all actions might be brought into the Court' at Charlottetown. On these grounds he would support the motion, that tho House do immediately go into Committee.

Mr. PALMER said, with respect to actions of Covenant between Landlord and Tenant, some were already ofa local nature, and their trial confined to a particular county. Where the action is brought between the original lessor and lessee, or between the assignee of the reversion (that is, a purchaser ofthe landlord's estate) and the lessee, wherein either may be plaintiff, these actions being founded on a privity of contract, are transitory ; but where the action is brought by the lessor against the aSsignee of the lessee (that is, a purchaser ofthe leasehold interest,) and the contrary ; also by the assignee of the reversion against the assignee ofthe lessee. and the contrary ; these being actions founded, as it is technically called, on privity'ofestate only, must of necessity be brought in the county where the estate lies. He (Mr. Palmer) assured hon. members that these rules constantly prevailed, and were so that, upon the whole, the number oftransitory causes between landlord and tenant was af- ter all small in proportion to those ofa local nature. There were many leases hoWever which contained stipulations as to the parti- cular place at which the rent is to be paid : the roots on some Town- shi s be himselfcould name, were payable in Charlottetown, where- in, it should follow, actions brought for those rents should be brought : and the lessor in such cases ought not, as the present Bill is intended to do, compel him to follow his lessee from county to

'oounty. when it became necessary to sue on the lease.

Mr. Tnonson said it was a very easy thing to have the venue changed. Another thing, he said, should be acknowledged ; he meant the justice ofthe principle that it was right that the Creditor should have to sue his Debtor, when suing was necessary, in the county wherein value had been received ; this would apply to rents. He would not like hon. gentlemen to lose sight of the Bill, but he saw a necessity for deferring the further consideration ofit ; he was disposed to support the Bill. _

Mr. Parr. would. without reserve or disguise, state his opinion of the Bill. He considered its object to be the protection ofdelinquent tenants, 5y securing to them, in cases of trial, the protection oftheir neighbours, who were as bad as themselves. Were actions of rent tobe confined to the Counties in which the rent accrued, landlords «would have a wretched chance ofjustice. The Bill would encou- -nge tenants to resist payment of rents. It was just and neces- -Iary, he said, that actions should be removed from those counties in which a strong popular prejudice was known to exist upon the sub- 'ect. He instanced the trials of the Chartists in England and Wales, and alluded to the present state of King’s County, in this Island. flisloyalfiebellious and insubordinate principles were, he was sorry do say, not foreign to some parts of P. E. Island. His opposition to {he Bill was not factions; it was made with a view to promote peace and order (laughter), to uphold the supremacy of the laws, and check the progress towards anarchy and confusion. He would move, as an amendment, that the Bill be committed this day three months! ,

The amendment was negatived, on the following division:

Yeas—6. Nays-13. _ - ,

It was then ordered, that the Bill be committed on Saturday.

___... SATURDAY, February

ML LE Luann“ reported. from the Committee to whom was re- ferred the Petition ofJohn \Villock. and the said Report was again Md at the Clerk's table, and is as follows: . . -

Your Committee, to whom was referred the Petition of John Willock, of Pleasant View, in Queen's County, ‘83- pectfully report, that they have examined the statements contained in said Petition, and are of opinion that the Pe- titioner’s case is one ofipeculiar hardship, and deserves the favourable consideration of this House—invoking as it does

the property of 'a person who was not concerned in the

about the imputed par iality of Sheriffs;

r

transaction in which it originated, and which was incurred Without his knowledge or consent, for which Petitioner’s pro- perty is now detained. Under the very peculiar circumstances in which the unfortunate Petitioner is now involved, by his brother, Mr. Abercrombie Willock, be having become one of the sureties of Major Coun Douly Rankin, in a Bond given by that gentleman, as required by Law, before he could contest his Election, your Committee are, under all the circumstances of the case, of opinion, that an fiddress be presented to his Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, praying him to be pleased to direct that such proceedings may be adopted as will prevent any further proceedings against the property of the said John Willock.

Ordered, that the Report be raCeived, and adopted by the House.

Messrs. Le Lacheur, M‘Neill and Arbuckle were appointed a Committee to wait on His Excellency with an Address in confor- mit therewith—who reported, that His Excellency would attend to t e desire of the House.

The Bill to amend the Act for regulating the time, and places of holding the Supreme Court in the different Counties, in so far as to compel all actions of a local nature to be tried in the County where the cause of action shall arise, was committed; and after several amendments had been introduced, the Bill, with the amendments, was reported to the House, and passed to be engrossed.

The Hon. J. S. MACDONALD read in his place a Petition ofdivers Inhabitants ofTownships Numbers 65, 30, 31, and others, praying a grant in aid ofindividual subscri lions towards erecting a Bridge over the Elliot River, from Angus ‘Eachern's to M‘Ewen’s.

Ordered, that the said Petition do lie on the table.

The Hon. Mr. Porn, according to notice, begged leave to intro- duce a Bill to enable Commissioners of Small Debts and Justices for the Trial of Assaults and Batteries, to appoint Clerks. The Bill contemplated no increase of fees. In other laces such Clerks were employed. They existed in New BrunsWIck, and he believed in Nova Scotia. Such appointments rendering direct application to Commissioners and Justices of the Peace unnecessary by persons taking out summonses and warrants, the Commissioners and Justices w0uld be less liable to have their minds prejudiced b ez-parte statements. Summonses, &e. would be granted by the Clerks, and Commissioners and Justices would previously hear nothing of the merits ofthe causes to be tried ; besides, it would beaconvenience to suitors. It now sometimes happened that aftér a man had travelled twelve or fifteen miles to take out a summons, he was, from not finding the Commissioner or Justide of the Peace at home, obliged to retrace his steps without having efl'ected his object. \Vere Clerks appuinted,such disappointm'eg‘ , auld be much less likely to be experienced. But the doing away" With the ease with which at- tempts were too often made by‘suitors to prejudice a case was alone almost a sufficient recommendation of the Bill. Without detaining the House, he would move that the Bill be received and read.»

The Bill having been read accordingly, the second reading ofit was set down for Wednesday.

JURY BILL.

Mr. THOMSON, according to previous notice, begged leave to in. troduce a Bill to regulate the qualifications ofJurors, and the mode ofstriking Juries. The chief objects of this Bill, he said, were, in the first place, to raise the qualifications ofJurors, and next to pre- vent ilie packing of Jurors. At present, said he, Jurors are select. ed by Sheriffme their Deputies, a practice! very. llnblnmhugg_ His Bill would alter the present mode ofselccting Jurors: i: ro- vides that lists of all persons qualified to serve as Jurors in eac of the Counties shall be prepared by the Justices of the peace, and presented to the respective Courts ; and, in order that qualifications may be real, the Sherifi‘s shall have power With respeth to qualifi- cations, to search every record in the sland. The names ofJurors so qualified were to be written on separate and similar pieces of paper, folded up, and placed in abox kept for that purpose, and drawn in open court. The Bill was almost a transcript oFthe Jur Law in Nova Scotia, a law which had been found to operate we | in that country. Another feature of the Bill, he said, was, that either plaintiff or defendant might object to three of the Jurors, before the swearing ofthe Jury : according to the present law, the privilege of objection was al owed only in criminal cases.’ The Grand and Petit Jurors were to be drawn from the same box. The functions of the latter were generally allowed to be the mostim. portant, and yet they were usually selected from the most ignorant classes of society. He had not unfrequently seen persons m the Jury box who did not understand a word of English.

Mr. PALMER, though it was unusual at this stage of the business, begged leave to make a few observations relative to what had fallen from the hon. mémber introducing the bill. He (Mr. P.) remarked upon the extreme guardedness and cautiop ofthe Law of England, with respect to Jurors. He observed, Sheriffs were men ofproperty, respectability and independence, and haying a knowledge of'persgng in their respective Counties. The names of Jurors, returned by the Sheriff, he said, were put into a box; all on scraps of'puper, and twelve were drawn promiscuously. As to the qualifications ofpeiit jurors, he confessed he had occasionally-seen portions acting as jurors who were not so well qualified, not so intellectual as he could have wished them to be. However, be supposed jurors were generally as good as the country could atlord. He denied that there were any grounds for imputing partial selections to the Sherifi'. His (Mr. P s.) knowledge, with respect to the appointing ofJiiries, he humbly con. ceived, was at least as great as that of the hon. framer of tho bjll. No names, he said, were selected to be put into the box._ Juries were drawn in open court; there was no chicanery, no artifice, all was done in a fair and open British style. It was.imp0551ble to pack 11 jury by any manoeuvre. Therefvas no occasion to provide, that after a fair drawing, each party might object to three. Such a practice would halfempiy thejury-box, and would uselesst con. sume the time ofthe court. There was a law admitting objections to be made to the next of kin, relations, or such as might be suppo. sed to have prejudged the cause; and being ofa notoriously bad charac- ter, was a sufficient reason for a man s beingstruck ofi'ajury. He thought an extension of the perll‘egB to.obje_ct was not required. The proposed mode of returning lists of indiv1duals properly qunll. fled to serve on juries, he thought, would be a very expensive one, Justices ofthe Peace could not be expected to take the trouble it would impose upon them, without suitable .remunerution, caddie. sides, ifSherifl's were to be suspected ofpartliility, so mightJustiecs ofthe Peace. Other objections might also he madcto the bill. ‘All that was wanted in juries, said (Mr. P.) was men ofsound. mind, honest intentions, and common understanding, to distingursh be. tween one fact and another, with two or three, capable ofexaminmg pa ers and accounts. . _ _ ‘

r. LE LACHEUR could not form an opinion until. he had heard the bill read. He was, however, decidedly. of opinion that some- thing ought to be done to change the composmon of ones. He had seen young men upon juries, who, he behaved, hn never seen the inside ofa, court before. Go juries there should always be two or three in some degree acquainted withuhe general practice ofcourts, a'ole not only to detect the prevarications .of Witnesses, but also to see through the wily glossings and forced interpretations oflawyers; and of penetration sufiicient to enable them to perceive and detect

motives. Mr. CLARK thought mental

qualifications ought to be an object of greater regard in pet't, than in grand

juries. He knew nothing but Deputy Sheriffs who

undertook the office as a job were not likely to put themselves to

any expense or trouble they could avoid, and were therefore very

apt to pick up men to Show: on juries, by chance, in their own ' ' nei hbour on . . _ (‘hlage'l‘ilildirssds exgplained that he had merely stated imputatisns of unfairness might be brought against sheriffs; it was to preven! the possibility ofsuch imputations that he had brought in the bill. I‘hat such persons as the honorable and .learned member for Charlotte- town had admitted frequently am as juryman,should ever have itiu their power to decide in cases of life and death, was, in those who gave the power, aerime against high heaven ; and he (Mr. l‘hom- son) said it was the duty of the learned and lion. member to come

CHARLOTTETOWN, SATURDAY, MARCH 14., l840.

nature soever, shall be brought and u‘

[No. 137:. - a

He (Mr- Thom-

forward in a manly manner to remedy the evil. h e

sop) admitted that juries were fairly drawn ; it wasthe selection, said, of men to serve on juries of which he complained. The Bill was then read the first time. .

aim. RELATING TO courtesan ELECTIONS.

The House then went into Committee on the\Bill to continue the Act for regulating the manner of proceeding on contested Elec- tions, &c.

The Committee went through the Bill, and made several amend- ments thereto. Mr. Speaker then assumed the Chair, and Mr. Le Lacheur, the Chairman of the Committee, reported accordingly.

Mr. Palmer moved, that the Bill be recommitted, for the purpose ofinsertinga clause, more clearly defining the qualifications of electors for Towns and Royalties. He supported his motion by repeating the explanation which he gave on Pride , when com- plaining that many of his constituents who were, he considered, entitled.by the spirit ofthe law, to vote at elections, were, by the ~ letter ofthe law, deprived oftheir right. ,

Mr. Lomwom-n said he did not see that any feasible objection could be ofi'ered against the adoption of the proposed amendment, as, in his opinion, it only went to explain a clause in the election act, in the we which, he had no doubt, was agreeable to the inten- tions of the rumors of that act, and according to what he really thought was the spirit ofit: but as doubts did exist on the min s ofsome of his constituents, as to its construction, and us many whom he thought were legally entitled to vote under the clause defining the qualifications of an elector for Towns and Royalties, could not take the oath re uired by law, if tendered to them, he thought the clause should be so amended,as to put it beyond question that the owners of the property, or owners and occupiers of property of the yearly value of £10 and upwards,whether that roperty were rented or not, were entitled to vote at the election of representatives for Towns and Royalties.

Some honourable members thought that the elective franchise should not be interfered with in any way, otherwise the bill must be reserved for the royal assent. ‘

The amendment was negatived, on the following division: Yeas, 5: Nays, 12.

The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed.

MONDAY, February 24.

The Bill for confining the trials of all actions of a local nature, to the Counties in which the defendant resides, or where the cause ofaction may be, was read a third time. ,

Mr. THOMSON said, that the bill appeared to him a very laboured production. What he had to propose was plain and simple. It merely went to shew what were to be considered local actions. Ifadopted, the laws then in operation would be sufficient. He did not see that those who had supported the hill could oppose the amendment. It was not his own production, and, therefore, he could speak impartially of it. It went quite as far as the bill, and would be better understood. He then proposed, as an amendment to the bill, viz: to strike out the whole, except the fourth section, and substitute the following:

“ Be it enacted, by the Lieutenant Governor, Council and Assem- bly, That from and alter the passing of this Act, all or any action or actions of debt, for use and occu ation, or otherwise, and all or any actions that may accrue or be brought upon a lease or leases, shall be deemed to be local, and the venue thereof shall be laid — 7 T. and tried in the County only where the cause ofsuch action or 7 actions has arisen : and that all criminal actions, of what kind or

' 41min”!

ofi‘ence may have been committed."

The House divided on the question—Yeas, 6; Nays, 12.

Mr. Palmer then moved, that the present title of the Bill be struck out, and the following substituted, viz:

“An Act compelling all actions between landlord and tenant, for the recovery of rent, whether of a local or transitory nature, to be tried in the County where the tenant resides, whether the rent be payable in that County or elsewhere, or whether such actions be founded in debt, covenant, replevin or assumpsit, and for other purposes therein mentioned.”

The House divided on the question—Yeas, 5; Nays, 13.