Case ID: njl_7/html/0194-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KmK.PATB.iOK:, O. J. Ford, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anonymous.
    1. It lias been the immemorial practice of courts, to order frivolous counts' and false pleas to be struck from the record.
    2. A mandamus will not lie to compel the Court of Common Pleas to receive a defendant’s plea.
    
      White applied to the court for a mandamus, to be directed to the Common Pleas of Cumberland, to compel them to receive the defendant’s plea of justification; and stated, as the ground of his application, that an action of trespass had been commenced against the defendant, to-which he had pleaded — 1. The general issue; and — 2. A justification. That the plaintiff’s attorney declined replying to the plea of' justification, but gave notice to the defendant’s attorney, that he would apply to the Court of Common Pleas to strike out the said plea; which, upon motion, the court ordered accordingly'.
    He contended — 1. That the Court of Common Pleas were-wrong in ordering the plea to be struck out; that the only proper course for a party to pursue, when he thinks a plea frivolous, was, to take judgment as if there was no plea, or reply, or demurrer to it, and that he could not apply to the court to strike it out; because, if the plea was struck out, the defendant could have no remedy by writ of error, anu no mode of bringing the question before a higher court for revision, and cited 3 John. 547.
    2. That a mandamus was the proper remedy in this case. 4 Bae. Air. 514, title Mandamus, letter E.
    
    
      Ewing, contra, said
    that the object of the writ of mandamus had been mistaken by the gentleman making the-application; that the office of the writ of mandamus was-only to compel the inferior court to proceed to decide upon the matters before them, and to command them to do-justice according to the powers of their office, whenever the same was delayed; but it never commanded them to proceed to give any particular judgment, or to prescribe the manner in which any act should be done. 1 Bl. Com. 110; 2 Pen. Rep. 576; 1 Halst. Rep. 158.
    2. That if a mandamus was the proper writ, yet the proceedings taken by the court below wore right. The case cited from Johnson’s Reports only proved that the plaintiff might demur to a frivolous plea, or treat it as a nullity. If he may treat it as a nullity, a fortiori, may he apply to the court for that purpose, and obtain their order to strike it out.
   KmK.PATB.iOK:, O. J.

From time immemorial, courts have stricken false pleas and frivolous counts from the record. It is right and proper that they should possess the power, in order to prevent their records from being unneessarily encumbered. But I am satisfied that a mandamus would not lie to compel the court to receive a plea, even if they were wrong in rejecting it.

Ford, J.

said, he thought it was not the office of a manda-mus to perform the object which was sought to be obtained % the defendant’s attorney in applying for the mandamus.

Motion refused.