Читать книгу A Concise History of the Common Law - Theodore F. T. Plucknett - Страница 158

In spite of their centralising policy, the Tudors realised that there was a proper place and function for the older local jurisdictions and so they attempted to prevent their continuing decline. To this end an act³ was passed in 1601 which is a striking example of the unforeseen effects of legislation. It was enacted that in certain personal actions a successful plaintiff shall not recover more costs than damages, if the justices certify that the damages are less than forty shillings. The object of the act was to exclude small cases from the courts at Westminster, where costs were out of all proportion to the issues at stake. The statute operated not on the verdict but on the judges’ certificate. Evasion of the act became general,¹ and in many cases judges were loath to grant a certificate which would deprive a successful plaintiff of his costs. Full use of it was not made until the middle of the eighteenth century, but in the meantime other statutes² continued its policy, notably in actions of slander.³ This legislation failed entirely in its object of reviving the local courts and excluding small cases from the central courts, but it did have the curious result of distinguishing arbitrarily between trespass (which was within the statute) and case (which was outside of the statute) as remedies for personal injuries. It thus became perilous to bring trespass on a battery if there was a possibility of getting a verdict of only nominal damages. Such actions are therefore generally framed in case for negligence.⁴