142
morning as a rule, but interlocutory summonses may be and are
heard at any convenient hour of any day.
Unless the Chief Justice gives notice to the
Puisne Judge before Friday that he desires him to take "original"
or Full Court work in addition to his "summary" work, the pro-
-gramme for the ensuing week arranged, as explained, on a Friday
is upset. If however due notice is given by the Chief Justice
to the Puiste Judge, I think that the summary work would not be
dislocated but could easily be arranged for. At least that is my
experience. Of course, if the Chief Justice is not prepared to
deal with big cases himself but is going to requisition the
services of the Puisne Judge frequently, the work of the
Summary Court will be dislocated. However, I see no more reason
for two Judges sitting on a heavy action in "original" in this
Colony than for two Judges doing so in England: in England each Judge tackles single-handed heavier cases than those litigated
here.
4.
As regards paragraph 4 of the Chief Justices
letter, 1 do not understand the phrase "there is only one ef-
"-fective Judge for the whole of the Supreme Court": it cannot
mean that Mr. Justice Wise is not an effective Judge nor that
the Chief Justice is the only effective Judge.
Further, assume that the work has quadrupled
in 30 years. That would not necessarily mean that the work now
was too much for two Judges, for the work in the old days and up
till quite recently was certainly not enough to cause the two
Judges to be overworked. I know that Sir William Goodman looked
on his elevation to the Bench here as a relief from the functions
of Attorney-General. Nor do actions with their accessory applica-
-tions to the Court, increase in proportion to the increase in
the number of Solicitors Firms.
5.
Σ