The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-12-20
FOR THE ENQUIRER.

One OF your correspondents, on prefenting
his view OF the fate of the court of Appeals,
has fuppofed that caufes would be doomed to
wait years before their term on the docket
would admit them to trial. ~.
AT the end of October term 1905, there re-
manned on the docket of the Court of Appeals
394 cauies to be tried. l2 of thefc turned on,
10 De undi'putcd and were difpofed OF in 800
asdelay cafes more went off by ATTACHMENTS
and diimiflion.- 377 caufes for arru-
ment. Out OF the lait number SO caufcs were
decided during the year 1906. TO the 9 terms
OF the preicnt year there were l24 appeals re.
ceived and docKetted by the Clerk, executive
of the delay appeals affirmed out of order.
1t the court ihould decide AS many caufes
each year as they decided during the prefent,
IT would require upwards of l2 years and an
half to fettle the appeals now before them. In
that l. l-2 years as many. new difputed appeals
would go up, taking the number that came up
IN 1905 as the annual average of appeals. as
would occupy the Court of Appeals more than
20 years.
The court fits now about 6 weeks each
term, 10 as to make an application of months
IN the year to the difcharge of their public
duty. Were the judgesto fit conRantly and
decide 50 caufes during every months, it
would require more than 3 years to difpofr of
the prefent docket. In that time more caufes
would be accumulated from fubieouent ap-
peals, if. the product of the year 1906,
mould be confidered as furnifl,ng the annual
itandard, than they now have 70 that if their
iefilons were perpetual the bufnefs would grow
on them.
very great accuracy in the foregoing efti-
mate isnot pretended to. There is no allow
ance made for an increafe of bulinefs from an
lncreafe OF population or from other canfes.
ne number of appeals decided in 1906, was
IN the belief of the writer, greater than COM
mon.
The court of appeals, without reform, will
fPeedIly bee ONE the common fepulchre of the
juificc of the fate.
The lmpediments. TO the administration of
Juitice IN this court are principally as follows.
Firft. The little time devoted by the iudpes
on each day to the difchargc of their duty in
court. They meet generally after IL and often
adjourn before three. Lord Mansfield was u
iualIy IN the court of Kings Bench at O'Clock.
and frequently fat Is hours. When bodily in
trinity made this fatigue infupportable, he re-
figned.
Secondly. The failure of the court TO de.
eide all the queftions well argued in A ca,(e.
Inc reports IN print and the obfervation of the
attendants will afcertan, that altho' council are
permitted to difcufs at full length every oueff;-
on they make, yet the court in general avoid a
deciion upon fuch as are difficult and impor-
tant, II they can turn the cafe upon point that
may be plain or fettled. If they would fix
principles, appeals depending on them would
De avoided.
Thirdly. The indulgence of council in diff.
cuiing at tedious length the painet elementary
proportions flaw. Arguments are FREQUENT.
ly heard at this bar which a well informed cc.n
~ court would difcourage 10
foustbly- The time expended in reading
the mott voluminous records, crammed with
deeds,wills, letters & other documents having no
bearing on the cafe. No judge can purfue the
thread OF record with the rapidty of the rea-
der and when he once loies, it the balance will
be loft on him. matter to be attended by the
council on both iides might make out brief.
iubJeet to correction, bya recurrence to the
material parts Of the record at the inaance of
the council or by the judges in confultation.
fifthly. The too eafy accefs of the conrt of
appeals to litigious fpirits. If the right of
appeal was limited to fubjects of difpute ex.
ceed'ng 5000 dollars in value, there would be
enough OF bulinefs to occupy the prefent court.
AMEMBER OF THE EAR.