Public Business. - Court Officers (Amendment) Bill, 1937—Committee.

Tuesday, 8 June 1937

Dáil Éireann Debate
Vol. 68 No. 1

First Page Previous Page Page of 31 Next Page Last Page

Section 1 agreed to.

(1) It shall be and be deemed always to have been lawful for a justice of the District Court to transact any business of that court in which he has jurisdiction at any sitting of the District Court within his district, whether such sitting is or is not held at a place, or on a day, or at an hour appointed under Section 47 of the Principal Act for the transaction of such business.

(2) It shall be and be deemed always to have been lawful for a justice of the District Court to transfer or adjourn the transaction [17] of any business of that court in which he has jurisdiction from any place in his district to any other place in his district and to transact such business at any sitting of the District Court in such other place, whether such sitting is or is not held at a place or on a day, or at an hour appointed under Section 47 of the Principal Act for the transaction of such business.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Ruttledge): Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), page 2, to delete all from the word “to” in line 24 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words “when sitting at a place, on a day, and at an hour appointed under Section 47 of the Principal Act for the transaction of any particular class of business of the District Court, to transact at such sitting any other class of business of the District Court.”

This amendment has resulted from correspondence with some district justices through the country who feel that it is very necessary, and that it will give a little elasticity to the position which existed heretofore.

Mr. Dillon: Information on James Matthew Dillon  Zoom on James Matthew Dillon  I take it that the Minister is quite satisfied in his mind that this cannot react unfavourably on litigants?

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  That is so.

Mr. Dillon: Information on James Matthew Dillon  Zoom on James Matthew Dillon  This amendment would appear to suggest that, if a district justice held a special court to deal with a special criminal charge at a special venue, he might then go on to deal with civil business.

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  That is not so. As the section stood, I am afraid that was the position. We had some doubts about it. What it is intended to provide now is that, where a venue is set out in Section 47 of the Court Officers Act, if a district justice sits at that particular venue to dispose of criminal business he will not be precluded, as he would at present, from dealing with civil business, but it must be a venue that is set out in Section 47 of the Court Officers Act. What we were [18] afraid of was that, as the section stood originally and as we introduced it, a justice could sit anywhere and take cases although perhaps people had no notice of that. Though it was very unlikely such a thing would happen, there was that danger.

Mr. Dillon: Information on James Matthew Dillon  Zoom on James Matthew Dillon  At present district justices do take civil and criminal business on the same day?

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  No.

Mr. Dillon: Information on James Matthew Dillon  Zoom on James Matthew Dillon  The purpose, then, of this amending Bill is to give him, explicitly, that power?

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Yes.

Mr. Dillon: Information on James Matthew Dillon  Zoom on James Matthew Dillon  But, further, to restrain him from taking any business of which litigants have not had any further notice?

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Yes.

Mr. Dillon: Information on James Matthew Dillon  Zoom on James Matthew Dillon  The Minister is satisfied as to that?

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Yes.

Amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (2), page 2, to delete all from the word “from” in line 31 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words to either—

(a) another occasion at the place in which he was transacting such business at the time of such transfer or adjournment, whether such occasion is or is not a day and hour appointed under Section 47 of the Principal Act, or

(b) to another occasion (whether such occasion is or is not a day and hour appointed under the said Section 47) at some other place in his district which is a place appointed under the said Section 47 for the transaction of business of the District Court, whether such business does or does not include the said business so transferred or adjourned.

Mr. Dillon: Information on James Matthew Dillon  Zoom on James Matthew Dillon  I presume that this is consequential on the other amendment?

[19]Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Yes.

Amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, put and agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 47 of the Principal Act or any appointment of a place or hour made or deemed by this Act to have been made under that section before the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for the senior of the justices of the District Court for the time being assigned to the Dublin district (in this section referred to as the senior justice) to determine from time to time the class or classes of business of the District Court to be transacted in each of the several places in the Dublin district court area for the time being appointed under the said Section 47 for the transaction of any class of the business of the District Court, and it shall also be lawful for the senior justice to determine from time to time the days and hours at which the several classes of such business shall be respectively transacted in the several places so determined.

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 3, line 40, to insert after the word “place” the words “or of a day”.

This is an obvious clerical omission.

Amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, put and agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

Bill passed through Committee and reported, with amendments.

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  If the House is agreeable, perhaps we could take the Report Stage now.

Question proposed: “That the Bill be received for final consideration.”

Mr. Good: Information on John Good  Zoom on John Good  I should like to ask the Minister one question, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle: Information on Frank Fahy  Zoom on Frank Fahy  Perhaps the Deputy would ask his question of the Minister on the Fifth Stage.

[20] Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: “That the Bill do now pass.”

Mr. Good: Information on John Good  Zoom on John Good  I just wanted to make sure, Sir, that the Children's Court which was held heretofore at Morgan Place can be held there in future. Is that so?

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  That was the reason for introducing this Bill.

Mr. Good: Information on John Good  Zoom on John Good  And any judgment passed therein, I presume, will be brought in under the clause?

Mr. Ruttledge: Information on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  Zoom on Patrick Joseph Ruttledge  That has all been rectified under this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.


Last Updated: 17/05/2011 09:42:14 First Page Previous Page Page of 31 Next Page Last Page