CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7] — Page 171

:

167

Ordinance passed on the 23rd. May, which has since been embodied

in Section 349 of the Code of Civil Procedure (No. 3 of 1901.)

In 1894 the Chief Justice's Clerk did not

apparently attend the Chief Justice in Court and one of the

recommendations of the Committee appointed in that year to en-

-quire into the Expenditure of the Colony, which Committee was

presided over by the Acting Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Ackroyd),

was that the Chief Justice's Clerk should take the place in

Court of a Deputy Registrar and that one of the two appointments

as Deputy Registrar should be abolished. The same Committee on

information furnished by their Chairman that the Puisne Judge's

Clerk beyond now and then copying out Judgments had little or

nothing to do when the Judge was not sitting in Summary Jurisdic-

-tion, advised that he should attend in the Registry when re-

-quired and assist in the work there. At the instance of Sir

Fielding Clarke no effect was given to the above recommendations

except as regards the Pulsne Judge's Clerk and from the time

Sir John Carrington became Chief Justice in 1896 the Deputy

Registrar and Appraiser attended the Chief Justice in Chambers in

place of the Chief Justice's Clerk. From evidence given by Sir

William Goodman before the Commission that enquired in 1903 into

the work of Supreme Court Registry it would appear that while

the Registrar was de present in Court and a Deputy Registrar

was attending the Chief Justice both in Court and in Chambers

the Chief Justice's Clerk was mainly employed in the Registry.

I am not aware how the duties of the

various members of the Supreme Court are at present allotted but

as Your Honour has informed me of your entire concurrence in the

recommendations of the Retrenchment Committee of 1894 that only

one Deputy Registrar would be necessary, provided the Chief

Justice's Clerk attended the Chief Justice in Court as well as in

Hever