MASTERS: THE TIME SAVERS
CURRENT HEARINGS--MINOR ISSUES THRESHED OUT.
The numerous motions and interlocutory applications, supported
by affidavits and urged by argument, which consume so much of
the time of an American court, are disposed of in England by
Masters--competent barristers appointed by the Courts, who are paid
salaries of about £3,000 a year.
At a certain hour the Master takes his seat at a desk with a printed
list of "applications without counsel" or "applications with
counsel." He nods to the uniformed officer at the door who admits
the solicitors engaged in the cause which happens to be first on the
list of cases "without counsel." The solicitors stand before the
Master with a shelf upon which to rest books or papers; one side
then states its demand and the other its objection in the briefest
and most direct manner. The Master's immediate oral decision,
accompanied by imposition of the costs and a few scratches of his
pen on the back of the summons, indicates to the officer the opening
of the door to admit the next case. By actual count twenty-seven
cases may thus be disposed of in one hour and thirty-two minutes--an
average of a little more than three minutes each. Of course there is
a right of appeal, which, however, is rarely exercised.
As the door opens two solicitors hurry in. There are no salutations
nor introductory remarks and the business proceeds abruptly:
_Plaintiff's solicitor_: "Master, we claim £50 judgment for
rent."
_Master to defendant's solicitor_: "Do you admit the
amount?"
_Defendant's solicitor_: "Yes, but we claim a set-off."
_Master_: (endorsing a few words on the summons) "Judgment
for rent £50 with stay of execution until counter claim is
tried."
_Defendant's solicitor_: "If you please, Master."
This expression is the universal vernacular with which the defeated
party accepts the judgment of a master or judge in all courts. The
expression is not an interrogation but is equivalent to "as you
please."
Out they go and the next enter; here the defendant asks for delay,
and gets seven days which is endorsed on the summons and requires a
minute.
Then comes an application under "order XIV" for judgment for £1,000.
Defendant requires four days' delay.
_Master_: "What is the defence?"
_Defendant's solicitor_: "Master, I don't know--a recent
agreement has been made between the parties which I have
not yet seen."
_Master_: "I'll give you four days, but you must pay the
costs of the adjournment; thirteen shillings and
fourpence."
_Defendant's solicitor_: "If you please, Master."
The next summons for judgment. As this is denied, the parties agree
to try it before the Master on the following Thursday without a
jury.
Then follows a summons by defendant upon plaintiff for particulars
of goods sold and delivered. Both parties are dealers in Japanese
bulbs, and the sale was made subject to arrival in England safe and
sound. The defendant demands particulars of the plaintiff as to who
were his customers. The plaintiff objects to disclosing his business
and the written summons, containing the request for particulars, is
gone over rapidly by the Master. Such parts of the request as, in
his opinion, ought not to have been demanded, because they pry into
the plaintiff's private affairs, are eliminated by a stroke of the
Master's pen and an order is made at the bottom in an abbreviated
form, imposing the costs of the summons upon the plaintiff. This
means that the plaintiff is obliged to furnish the defendant, in so
many days, all the particulars which the Master did not strike out,
and must pay the defendant the costs of the application.
A moment is consumed in giving judgment in an uncontested case for
£1,800 with costs of £8. 16s. 0d.
Then comes a breach of promise case. The defendant asks for an order
upon the plaintiff for a statement of claim and discovery of
correspondence, which is granted. As most of the witnesses are in
London, the defendant wants to try the case here, but the plaintiff
wishes to try it in Manchester where the parties live. The Master
thinks it is easier to bring two people up from Manchester than to
take a dozen down from London.
Next is a summons for directions:
_Master_: "Statement of claim in ten days."
_Plaintiff's solicitor_: "Yes, Master."
_Master_: "Defence in ten days."
_Defendant's solicitor_: "Yes, Master."
_Master_: "No counter claim?"
_Defendant's solicitor_: "No, Master."
_Master_: "Documents?"
_Both solicitors_: "Large number."
_Master_: "All parties in London?"
_Both solicitors_: "Yes."
_Master_: "Any question of law?"
_Both solicitors_: "No."
_Master_: "Next case."
And he at once endorses a few words on the bottom of the summons.
Then a defendant appears in person:
_Master_: "Do you owe the £26?"
_Defendant_: "Yes, sir."
_Plaintiff's solicitor_: "We only want judgment for £21
because this morning he paid £5 on account, and he agrees
to pay £3 a week, so that we will not issue execution if he
does this."
_Master_: "I'll give you judgment generally for £21, but
you write defendant a letter stating that you will not
issue execution as you have just stated."
Another defendant appears in person:
_Defendant_: "I've got no defence, all I want is time."
_Plaintiff's solicitor_: "We'll do nothing until Monday as
we think he means to pay."
_Master_: "All right, it is understood you will do nothing
until Monday."
The details of practice before these Masters would be beyond the
scope of the present writing, suffice it to say that rules have been
promulgated from time to time, and are constantly being improved
upon, having for their object the simplification of procedure, the
rapid despatch of business and the settling of all minor questions
which may arise in a case before actual trial. Thus, "Order XIV,"
just referred to, enables a Master to enter judgment when the
defence averred, even if true, would not be effectual, or when the
defence is obviously frivolous, although, of course, the rights of
the defendant are preserved by the privilege of appeal, the
judgment, meantime, binding his property. Again, the "summons for
directions" is to enable the Master to give general directions as to
how the parties shall proceed, the intervals of time to be allowed
for exchange of copies of documents, taking foreign testimony and
what not.
One of the cleverest contrivances in the practice before Masters is
the "tender of damages in tort without admitting liability." A
defendant may tender, say, £500. If plaintiff does not accept it,
the trial ensues--the jury, of course, being in ignorance of the
tender. If the judgment be for defendant, or for more than the
tender, that is the end of the matter. But if the judgment be for
less than the tender, a large deduction for costs is made from the
judgment, and inures to the defendant's benefit. This has enormously
reduced the volume of accident cases and has also curbed the often
wildly extravagant demands and unjust results in such actions
generally recognized as evils difficult to deal with.
In short, the system of Masters in England works admirably. It is
entirely adaptable to American courts, the details and modifications
which might prove necessary being fitted to local conditions, but in
any such adaptation, the general purpose should be kept in view,
namely, that when a case appears upon a trial list it shall have
already been pruned of all non-essential preliminary details and is
forthwith to be actually tried upon its merits; the court's time
being too precious to be expended upon the subsidiary side issues.