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.

I take it that the Minister is quite satisfied in his mind that this cannot react unfavourably on litigants?

That is so.

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.

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 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.

At present district justices do take civil and criminal business on the same day?

No.

The purpose, then, of this amending Bill is to give him, explicitly, that power?

Yes.

But, further, to restrain him from taking any business of which litigants have not had any further notice?

Yes.

The Minister is satisfied as to that?

Yes.

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.

I presume that this is consequential on the other amendment?

Yes.

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.

If the House is agreeable, perhaps we could take the Report Stage now.

I should like to ask the Minister one question, Sir.

Perhaps the Deputy would ask his question of the Minister on the Fifth Stage.

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?

That was the reason for introducing this Bill.

And any judgment passed therein, I presume, will be brought in under the clause?

That has all been rectified under this Bill.