Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1848-02-18

uOl Vi 1910, cites an instance where '" an
action of debt was brought 10 recover about
81, 900. The defendant insisted that the
form of action should have been covenant.
A learned Judge at circuit decided that the
action was III right form. The Supreme
Court, three years afterwards, in learned
opinion, citing almost all the books of the
common law, held the same opinion. Yet
that judgment, two or three years afterward.
was reversed by the unanimous opinion of
the court of Errors, and the plaintiff com
PEELED to pay costs far greater in amount
than the original claim" Mr.. O'C further
remarks that Chancery Courts have extend
ed their originally limited jurisdiction-and
the courts of law liberalized their remedies,
and encroached upon the peculiar province
OF chancery, so that these jurisdictions are
absolutely interlocked so as to puzzle the
most learned to distinguish where law prac-
tce ends and chancery begins. Yet bring
ing suit at law when the remedy should
have been IN equity, subjects to a non-suit;
and the mere question to which cour. suit
belongs, often costs years of litigation, and
the entire fortune of the applicant seeking
justice. The plaintiff in the case of Elmen-
dorf VS.. Harris 18th Wendel's Reporls) as
quoted by O'Connor, applied for remedy at
law in the court of Common Pleas. The
Judge decided that relief could not be had
at law. The Supreme Cont, some years
afler said the same. Seventeen volumes of
Wendell's Reports elapse, and we find the
decision Of the Court of Errors that his re-
medy acaS at lar. After this delay and ru-
nous cost, he could have trial Of the nler-
as Of has case. Our books are full of nom
suits, after long and expensive litigation,
merely because parties, lawyers and judges
do not know the true form of action, or
within which Jurisdiction the action appro-
priately belongs.
will not delay this convention with
lengthy comment upon these facts, merely
remarkng that there must be something ra-
ideally defective in our administration Of
justice when a man may be compelled to
push his claim for the enforcement of his
rights, or redress of his wrongs through
every grade of our courts, and never have
the intrinsic merits fhis case taken the least
notice of-courts, counsel, parties and ju-
rors all bending to the consideration of some
technical point which is made vital 10 the
suit, but which has no sort of relation to
justice in the premises.
must confess, Mr.. President, that while
| discuss this matter with unieigned diff
dence of my own Information on the sub
ject. am skeptical as respects the exist
ence of any magic that peculiarly propitiates
Justice, in the declarations. pleas, replica
tons. rcioinders, &c, &C.. &c, of proceed
ngs in equity, or the multiplied fictions Of
the pleadlngs at law. II seems to my ham,
bic comprehension that the two systems
(Iaw and equity can be blended the pre-
sent arbitrary Aiatinrtinns -Sl actions at law
abolished-our antlquated forms substituted
by plain declarations of fact, and thus our
courts become .3neric0ni2cd-all iheir pro-
ceedngs marked with that simplicity, ener-
gv and straight forwardncss which we
proudly claim as national characteristic.
Let the sutton be able to enter our courts,
state his case in direct manner, the delen
dant answer as explicitly, and the court and
jury give iudgmcnta as to the right and wrong
in the ease, III view Of the facts set forth.
do not pretend that tie section reported by the
committee or even the substitute under discussion,
explicitly euioius the complete aud radical reforms
iust limited at But let three commissioners. ',men
learned in the law, if you please as ! understand
the gentleman from Ia Farctte wishes so 20 restrict
the selection for we want the pruning work OF in
telligent reiormers not the blind cutting and slash
ING of ignorant iGnovators-let them be men OF en-
inent learning and ability but lmbaed with the warm
impulse of real improvement, and believe that the
whole reform will be produced in, or result from,
their labors.
70 show how great a change could be effected by
merely iudcious rcyisal and abridsement Of the
forms at present in use beg leave TO read in con-
trast two items ofdecIaration in action for SLAM
der, cited by Mr.. Chatield an eminent lawyer of
the n. Y. Convention, in an argument on a similar
proposition before that body
[SUrREME CoURr.1
4 complains that D, on the 10th day of Au-
gust 1915, at Albany, spoke concerning the said
g. the following false and sanderous words, TO wit
You are thief He is thief. he stole sheep.
He stole and ought to 20 TO the states prison To
ths damage OF the SAID \. B. {. +. Atty.
This is plain, simple, pracical-it is common
sense. Can as much be sand for the following
which Mr. c. says would be the form under the
present system in the courts OF the state?
SUPREME COURT-Of the term of January in
the year one thousand eight hundred and forty
five.
Otsego county. ss.-John Doe, Plaintiff in the
suit, BY Richard Roe, his attorney, complains OF
James Stiles, defendant in this suit by the filing
and service of a declaration and not by d writ of
plea Of pass on the case-For that whereas the
said plaintiff now Is a good, true, and honest and
faithful citizen Of this state and as such hath always
behaved and conducted himself and had deseveJly
obtained the good opinion and es Gem OF all his
neghbors and other good aud worthy citizens OF
this state, 10 whom he was in any wise known, TO
wit. at the Ctyot lbany ard until the committing
of the several grievances by the said defendant as
hereinafter mentioned the said plaintiff had not
been guilty nor suspected 10 be guilty OF the crime
o. larceny or any such crime yet the said defend
ant well knowing the premises but greatly enyying
the happy state and condition of the said plaintiff
and coutri,ing aud falsely intending 10 iuue the
said plaintiff IN his SAID good name fame and credit,
and 10 bring him into public scandal, intamy. and
disgrace, with ard amongst all his neighbors and
Other good aud worthy citizens of this state and 10
vex, harrass, impoverisb, and annoy him. the said
plaintiff heretofore to wit. on the 22nd dav of Au.
gust, 1916 IN d certain discourse which the SAID de-
len aEt then and there had in the presence and hea-
r.ng OF divers good and worthy citizens at Albany (
ia the county OF Albany. falsely and maciousy 4
spoke and published 10. Of and concerning SAID /
plaintiff, these false malicious, and delamatory
words, following that IS 10 say You. the said I
plaintiff thief; YOU Ihe said plaintiff again