no suggestions to make with regard to the forms now in use except that we think the narrative should always be articulate in the same way as a Condescendence is: and that the Answers should be correspondingly so in the same way as Defences are. The forms in use are practical and elastic, and well suited for their purpose.

Motions in Petitions.-In opposed Petitions, we think the same procedure should be adopted in relation to uncontested motions as we suggest above in relation to uncontested motions in opposed actions. But in unopposed Petitions, we think the present procedure of appearance by Counsel should be adhered to. The necessity for strict compliance with the technicalities enjoined by the many Acts of Parliament which apply to the greater part of Petition procedure makes it, in our opinion, inadvisable to relax the requirements of regular procedure.

Remits in Petitions.-The use of affidavits to vouch the statements in a Petition that constitute the grounds on which the prayer of the Petition rests has never been regarded with favour in Scotland. In unopposed petitions, and in some that are opposed, a remit to a professional man or to a man of skill is thus the only means (short of the expense of formal enquiry) by which the Court can be certiorated of the reliability of the allegations upon which it is asked to act. The expense of such remits was a matter of criticism by some of the witnesses whom we examined. That expense is at present aggravated by the printing of the reports made upon the remits, and it will be so far modified if boxing and printing are no longer required (see Chapter IX). It was suggested that the Clerks of Court should perform the function of reporters without remuneration beyond their salaries. We do not think this duty could suitably be placed wholly upon their shoulders. It is often necessary for the reporter to inform himself by personal interviews, correspondence, and local visits; and the considerations involved not infrequently cover a wide range. The performance of these duties would not be consistent with the attendance of the clerks at Court. WE DO NOT THEREFORE MAKE ANY COMPREHENSIVE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS HEAD. It should, however, be competent for the Court to appoint a particular Clerk or Clerks of Court to take these remits in suitable cases where the expense of a remit to a non-official reporter would be disproportionate to either the amount involved or the end in view. It would be for the Principal Clerk to say whether or not he could spare the services of a clerk for this purpose.

Public delivery of judgments in Actions and Petitions.-We refer to what is said on this topic at the end of Chapter VII.

We therefore recommend :

(1) THAT THE PRESENT FORM OF SUMMONS SHOULD BE RE

PLACED BY THE SHORT FORM SET FORTH IN APPENDIX No. IX, WHICH SHOULD BE OF UNIVERSAL APPLICATION TO ALL CASES;

(2) THAT THE PRESENT FORM OF CONDESCENDENCE AND ANSWERS AND RELATIVE PLEAS-IN-LAW SHOULD BE RETAINED;

(3) THAT WARRANT FOR ALL DILIGENCE ON THE DEPENDENCE SHOULD BE OBTAINED ON THE SUMMONS THROUGH THE SHORT FORM SHOWN IN APPENDIX No. IX;

(4) THAT WARRANT TO ARREST IN ORDER TO FOUND JURISDICTION SHOULD BE OBTAINABLE IN LIKE MANNER;

(5) THAT THE NECESSITY FOR THE SIGNATURe of a WriteR TO THE SIGNET TO A SUMMONS SHOULD BE DISPENSED WITH;

(6) THAT THE SIGNET SHOULD BE KEPT IN THE OFFICES OF THE COURT AND MADE AVAILABLE THERE FOR SIGNETING SUMMONSES WITHOUT ANY CHARGE OVER AND ABOVE THE COURT DUES ON THE SUMMONS: ALTERNATIVELY, IF THIS CANNOT BE DONE, SIGNETING SHOULD BE DISPENSED WITH AND THERE SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED THEREFOR THE STAMP FOR THE COURT DUES AFFIXED TO THE SUMMONS WHEN PREsented at the OFFICE OF THE COURT FOR WARRANT TO SERVE ;

(7) THAT THE LONG Induciæ SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO TEN

DAYS AND THAT ENTRY OF APPEARANCE SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN

THE Induciæ;

(8) THAT THE SUMMONS SHOULD BE LODGED FOR CALLING SEVEN OR TEN DAYS AFTER EXPIRY OF THE Induciæ, THE Partibus AND ROLL OF DEFENDERS' NAMES BEING DISPENSED WITH, AND A MOTION SHEET BEING ADDED TO THE OTHER PAPERS REQUIRING TO BE LODGED;

(9) THAT THE DEFENCES SHOULD BE DUE ON THE SEVENTH DAY AFTER EXPIRY OF THE Induciæ, SUBJECT TO A RIGHT ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDER TO LODGE HIS DEFENCES WITHIN THE Inducia, SUCH LODGING TO BE EQUIVALENT TO ENTRY OF APPEARANCE;

(10) THAT CASES SHOULD BE PUT OUT IN THE ADJUSTMENT ROLL ON THE EARLIEST AVAILABLE DAY-NOT EARLIER THAN THE EIGHTH AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME FOR LODGING DEFENCES: AND THAT THE PURSUER SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LODGE A COPY OF THE OPEN RECORD NOT LATER THAN THREE DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SAID TIME;

(11) THAT COUNTER-CLAIMS OF ANY AMOUNT OR KIND, ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS FOUNDED ON BY The Pursuer, SHOULD BE PLEADABLE BY THE DEFENDER, AND ENFORCEABLE IN HIS FAVOUR,

WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF RAISING A SEPARATE ACTION.

(12) THAT ALL INCIDENTAL MOTIONS SHOULD BE MADE BY THE PARTIES' LAW-AGENTS IN WRITING ON THE MOTION SHEET, AND INTIMATED;

(13) THAT IF NO ENTRY IS MADE ON THE MOTION SHEET BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY OPPOSING A MOTION OR PROPOUNDING A COUNTERMOTION, WITHIN TWO DAYS, THE MOTION SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO

A LORD ORDINARY IN CHAMBERS BY THE CLERK OF COURT AND DISPOSED OF, WITH POWER TO THE LORD ORDINARY, IF HE SEES FIT, TO DIRECT THE MOTION TO BE PUT OUT IN THE ROLL FORTHWITH AND DISCUSSED BY COUNSEL ;

(14) THAT ALL MOTIONS APPEARING FROM THE ENTRIES IN THE MOTION SHEET TO BE CONTESTED SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF IN THE MOTION ROLL AS AT PRESENT;

(15) THAT IN ALL CASES IN WHICH A PROOF IS ALLOWED

APPLICATIONS FOR COMMISSION AND DILIGENCE FOR RECOVERY OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN FOUR WEEKS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLOWANCE OF PROOF, AND NOT LATER, EXCEPT OF CONSENT OR ON SPECIAL CAUSE SHEWN.

(16) THAT COMMISSIONS FOR THE RECOVERY OF DOCUMENTS EXECUTED IN EDINBURGH ONLY SHOULD ALWAYS BE MADE IN FAVOUR OF A CLERK OF COURT WHO SHOULD DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF COMMISSIONER AND CLERK WITHOUT REMUNERATION BEYOND HIS OFFICIAL SALARY AND NECESSARY OUTLAYS.

(17) THAT ALL CASES STANDING IN THE PROcedure Roll UN

HEARD FOR MORE THAN TWO WEEKS SHOULD BE PUT OUT BEFORE

A LORD ORDINARY FOR THE FIRST AVAILABLE DAY (WHETHER SEDERUNT-DAY OR MONDAY) AS A PEREMPTORY DIET;

(18) THAT THE forms of PetITION AT PRESENT IN USE SHOULD BE RETAINED, BUT THE NARRATIVES AND ANSWERS SHOULD BE ARTICULATE AND CORRESPOND;

(19) THAT THE PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO UNCONTESTED MOTIONS IN ACTIONS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN OPPOSED PETITIONS, BUT NOT IN THOSE UNOPPOSED.

CHAPTER VII.

ORDINARY FORMS OF PROCESS AND PROCEDURE IN THE INNER HOUSE.

Mode of Reclaiming--Reclaiming Days (see Appendix No. X)-Time for Appeals from Inferior Courts-Single Bills (Reclaiming Notes and Appeals from Inferior Courts and Authorities)-Summar and Short Rolls- Order of Debate-" Notes ' in the Inner House-Delivery of Judgments.

Mode of Reclaiming.-The existing mode of appeal to the Inner House from the judgment of a Lord Ordinary is by Reclaiming Note, which (as already mentioned) is technically a request for a re-hearing, and is a survival of the time when there was no permanent division of the Judges between the Outer and the Inner Houses.

The present form of Reclaiming Note is regulated by section 51 of the Court of Session Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Vic. c. 100), and section D. i. 1 of the Codifying Act of Sederunt of 1913. It consists of a separate print containing :

1. An address to the Lords of Council and Session,

2. The names of the parties,

3. A copy of the interlocutor complained of, and

4. A statement in the following form, viz. :"Of this date Lord ...

Ordinary,

was pleased to pronounce the prefixed interlocutor which is humbly submitted to review. According to Justice, etc.'

The Reclaiming Note must be signed by Counsel for the Reclaimer, and is subject to the regulations as to printing and boxing contained in the Court of Session Act, 1825 (6 Geo. IV c. 120, s. 18), and Section D. i. 2 of the Codifying Act of Sederunt, as modified by Act of Sederunt of 27th October 1922. It must also be lodged by the Reclaimer's agent in the office of the Clerk of the Division to which it is taken.

With one exception, the witnesses we heard on this subject were of opinion that this procedure is unnecessarily cumbrous and expensive, and that it should be possible to reclaim simply by means of a Note written upon the Motion Sheet in the Process (see Chapter VI), and signed by the Reclaimer's agent. The Note should be in some such form as follows:-"Date. The Pursuer (or Defender or other party to the cause) reclaims to the Inner House against (refer by date to the Interlocutor or Interlocutors reclaimed against)." Appeal is now taken from the Sheriff Court to the Court of Session in a very similar manner. We think these simplifications in procedure are well devised in the interests of economy, and we favour their adoption.

Reclaiming Days.-The number and complexity of the statutory provisions with regard to the time within which Reclaiming Notes may be taken in various circumstances is a source of confusion, and often causes needless expense to litigants. Recently one of the Divisions was occupied for a whole day in deciding whether a Reclaiming Note fell under one statute or another. There are at present no fewer than seven categories into which Reclaiming Notes fall as regards time. These are set forth in Head (A) of Appendix No. X along with a note of the various provisions of Statute or Act of Sederunt under which the respective periods for these different categories are fixed. Where no Statute or Act of Sederunt is specified, the periods are fixed by practice. Head (B) of the same Appendix contains a chronological Note of such of the provisions referred to as would be affected by the proposals hereinafter made.

Some witnesses thought that a uniform time should be fixed for all Reclaiming Notes; but the majority were of opinion that the seven categories should be reduced to two: one to apply to all interlocutors disposing of the whole cause (except in certain special proceedings such as bankruptcy and company proceedings and

petitions); and the other-a shorter period-to apply to all interlocutors in these excepted cases, and to all other interlocutors not disposing of the whole cause. There was some difference of opinion among the witnesses as to the exact periods that should be fixed. We adopt the view that there should be only two periods; and recommend that these should be fixed as follows, viz. :-(1) twenty-one days for interlocutors disposing of the whole cause, including decrees by default and decrees in absence, but excepting interlocutors in bankruptcy and company proceedings and petitions, and (2) fourteen days in the case of interlocutors in these excepted cases and of all other interlocutors not disposing of the whole cause. We are further of opinion that when leave to reclaim is required it should be obtainable at any time within the reclaiming period, but that the date of the interlocutor granting leave should not affect the reclaiming period.

We also agree with a suggestion made by one of the witnesses. that, in the case of Vacation Emergency Orders, such as those for the appointment of interim factors or the recal of arrestments, reclaiming should only be competent with leave of the Lord Ordinary who grants the order. Reclaiming in such cases is sometimes a mere device to defeat the intention of an Emergency Order.

Time for Appeals. It would be an advantage if a similarly uniform system could be introduced to regulate the times allowed for Appeals from other Courts, and particularly from the Sheriff Courts. There is great diversity among the statutory provisions regulating this matter. Appeals have been allowed on various subjects, by different statutes, passed at different dates, and little or no regard appears to have been paid to the desirability of uniform rules. We have found it impossible to deal with this matter without proposing amendments of a number of statutes which regulate the proceedings of tribunals other than the Court of Session; and any proposals we might be able to make would carry us beyond the limits of our Reference.

Single Bills (Reclaiming Notes and Appeals from Inferior Courts and Authorities).-Many of the witnesses expressed the opinion that unless objection is to be taken to the competency of a Reclaiming Note, or of an Appeal, it should not be necessary for the Reclaimer or Appellant to enrol the case in the Single Bills. The procedure suggested was (1) that on an Outer House interlocutor being reclaimed against (in the manner above described), or on an Appeal from an Inferior Court being presented, the Clerk of Court should within two days send written notice thereof to the respondents or their agents, (2) that in the event of the respondent desiring to object to the competency of the Reclaiming Note or Appeal, he should within three days of the intimation notify the Reclaimer or Appellant of the objection and enrol the case in the Single Bills for its disposal, and (3) that unless the case be so enrolled it should be put down by the Clerks of Court in the appropriate Inner House