CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7] — Page 146

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