New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-03-28
SUCCEss ON LAW REFORM.
-Inious Of JHdges on The Code OF Proredure.

2
the former PRACTICE specially In those psrticu-
lars in which IL has MADE the most radical changes
-werefer % the abolishing the distinction be-
tween the different kinds Of actions the abrogaton
of the old tysten OF plead ng. and the blending Of
legal aud equitable jurisdiction.
IL was upon this last feature Of the Code, that
we had the most serious doubts bat those doubts
have been completely removed, and We regard
the administration OF legal ar equitable rene
dies. not only in the same 70 au, bat when neces.
sary or proper in the same action, as one OF the
greatest advantages of the new system. A SUIT
or is no longer told, after severa years spent 10
seeking legal redress, that he u.s. TO be sure, en-
titled to it, but he has mistaken the place, he
must apply at the next door; on the contrary he
now obtains, at once, all the relief 70 which the
facts Of his case az set forth in the pesdings and
established by the proofs, entitle him. whether
that relief be legal or equitable. or both.
We have had considerable experience in hear
ing equity causes-mRny olthem t-snsterredtrom
the old Court Of Chancery, and of that class OF
cases which, under the new system, are tried be-
fore the court without jury-snd although we
had our misgiviDgs as 20 the expectancy and prac-
ticAbility OF the proposed mode, yet we have
found that the oral examination Of witnesses ia
open court is not only the shortest, bat the most
satisfactory method In several important and
intricate equity causes, we have taken all the
testimony as at niSt pTluS, and then heard the
causes upon the pleadiugs end the proofs thus
taken-tbe whole trial and argument ia each case
occupying but u few days-where under the old
system, months would have been spent and great
expense incurred in taking testimony alone. The
power which the court possesses OF excluding
improper and irrelevant testimony, and that
which is cumulative merely, OF itself conters an
immense advantage on the new system. When
tn facts have been numerous and complicated,
we have sometimes adopted the practice of Our
a L.. n 4 e.
few days after the evidence was all in, 10 enable
the counsel 10 prepare more thoroughly their ar
gument on the law and the facts Upon the whole
we are entirely satisfied that Justice is no more
promptly and more cheaply administered than it
under the old ~ stem, and the rights of lit
gaBts ss carefully protected
There are, we admit, many inconvenience
growing out Of so sudden and entire aters-
ton in the modes of proceeding; and the labor
of the Judges has been lot little Increased.
Many OF the provisions Of the Code are misun'
oerstood and Improperly applied. There is much
loose and inaccurate pleading, since 1t Is not
every lawyer who can state bis case IN COM
plant or declaration with brevity and perspicu-
ity, and there is sometimes a clashing In judi
cial construction Of some of the sections. Bat
we do lot think that the evils arising from these
sources are greater than might have been antlci.
pated. They are temporary in their nature aud
are, we think, more than counterbalanced by the
benefits to which we have referred.
We are not to be understood however, az say
ing that the code is perfect in its present form
w e think it susceptible OF amendment in many
respects, and especially on the subject OF plead
ing Some provisions, we think, ought to be in
serted, which would oblige parties to render
the peadipgs more definite, and to present more
distinctly the issues to be tried Some OF the
sections also are ambiguous aud obscure. Bat
there defects will probably soon be remedied by
judicial construction legislative action; and
such other alterations and improvements az ex-
perience may suggest can easily be made. The
general features Of the Code, however. will be re-
tanned.
Notwithstanding the disfavor with which it was
ct first received by large portion of the Bar, and
we believe we may add Of the Bench, yet we
think that large majority Of both would, at the
present moment, be opposed to a return to the old
system; and before many years shall have rolled
Oh, it will be matter Of sstOnishment how we
could ever have endured it so long.
IL will be understood that we have had refer
ence, ia what we have said, 20 the Code Of 1910,
which is in force at present, and not 10 the Code
proposed by the Commissioners last Winter, with
the details Of which, so far they differ from tbs
present Code we are not familiar.
Weere, dear sir, with crest re'p-c,, yours uuiy,
JOHN Di Err
JOHN l. MASON,
WILLIAM w. CAMPBELL
DAVID DUDLEY FIELD, EsQ-Dear Sir: In
answer to your favor OF the 9th inst, asking my
views in regard to the practical working OF the
Code, can only give you the results OF my expe'
rience.
/ consider the Code as containing three promi.
nent alterations in the administration OF justice,
viz: The abolition of ell forms Of actions, the
union Of law and equity jurisdiction In the same
tribunal and the alteration Of the system OF plead.
ing, so as TO abolish technicaties and forms, and
10 substitute plain statement OF the facts con-
stitutiDg the cause of action, or the defense.
have no hesitation in say ing, that in my judy
meDt the abolition of different forms OF actions,
and the new system Of pleading, when properly
carried into effect, Will prove to be desirable re-
forms, and that have seen nothing, in admins
teriDg the law under this system, to lead to aeon
trary opinion. The first relieves the Courts from
alaTge amount of litigation upon very immaterial
matters, and enables the Courts TO decide upon
the merits of the controversies that come before
them, without reference to useless questions OF
form; and the second relieves the parties from
that nicely of pleading which had, under the old
system, become burdensome, while it presents 20
the Court, on the trial. the real merits involved
between the parties. Difficulties, it is true are
as yet constantly arising before the Courts, in
stTainirg parties from inserting in their peadings
improper or irrelevant matter instead of con-
filming such pleadiDgs to the simple statement
winch tne NOoe OHectst out as soon as " Is ulder
stood that such matters will be stricken out or
diregarded by the Courts, and the peadings be
confined TO what the Code permits t. be inserted
therein, am satisfied that the true issues will
mere easily be presented for trial and much time
be saved in the Courts on the trial OF causes.
IN regard TO the union of law and equity juris'
diction have hardly bad sufficient experience 70
give you an opinion as TO the practical effect of
the change. But few causes of this description
have as yet reached the courts for trial SO far
IS have had an opportunity OF forming an opin.
ion, it is favorable 10 the change. The result will
undoubtedly be great saving Of time and ex
peDIe TO suitors, and more speedy decision Of
cases by the courts.
The residue Of the Code relates to NJ ere details
Of practice. In the Introduction OF new system
Of tbis kind, it must be expected that many omis-
sions and defects will be found, requiring either
judicial decisions or legislative action 70 remedy.
IL viii REQUIRE time to perfect the syatem, with