New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-01-30

There are however some serious evils com ced with
this great and radical charge In the practice These how
ever are chsrgesbe 10 the account Of the system Itself
than the judiciary and the bar Old forms Of pleading hav
ing be dispensed with Nmany seem TO understand that
there Is no longer any such thing Of pleading Hence II u
thai our Courts are often perpeXe and embarrassed with
very crude specimens Of pleading sbounang with prox
statements OF evidence requiring often much time and
teDce TO eean from The mass the points Of the
have occasionally met this dncully at the Circuit TINS
however not 90 much the fault Of he system OF the
But there i another evil which lies still deeper. Il IL
that we have not and not likely soon to have any hing
ike uniform practical Construction of the provisions OF the
code Each Judge liberty 10 decide any question
arising under The code for himself lie regards ne opinion
Of another Judge entitled 10 respect perhaps bu not az
auihoritv One Judge. endeayorng TO follow the spirit
which brought the code into existence WI, nterpe1 ne
provisions with view TO render pfacicAbr an useful
Another tess avOrsbeto chang &c, VIII conform hsdecons
practice and a perhaps, with very
friendly regard for tie success of tho system
Some defects IN the details have been developed by it,
practical operation which may be easily cured oqt me
chief difficulties are IN my gneut Ose 10 "hlcn nave
referred other way bul 10 leave these evils 10 be
cured by time and experience The system being 80 en-
trely new, have yet no standard ny which we can
nfsiby determine, whether he construction winch our
Judge chooses to give any particular provision or ha OF
and Judicial wisdom, did in the common law praclce
4c0rk ont this standard.
The evil too resulting excessive laXity in plead
ing T. within the power Of correct 10 will be
work of much labor to edvc0f the bar % this new $
tenn Of presenting their facts But even a. s now, u 10
far preferable 10 the former practice Here. Il party is
unable have lis presented 10 the court upon It's
me- ts unfettered by technicaes il wholly owing 10
The negligence or unskuness OF hs lawyer II An ad
mTabe feature Of the that II possesses mat neXl-
biy which will enable counsel, with the exercise OF
reasonable amount Of skill 10 present his cas- 80 matt
MAY be disposed Of according 70 ~ reTy justice without
the hazard Of passing of 60 many cases dd under me
old system without approaching the real merits oil me
Ihsve ih5s NV dear sir frankly and cursoly expressed
you my views Of the practical coying 81 me CODE
It's adoption great step IN improve neht As Wen As
groo,es Tie great and leading features OF the system
can be abandoned Ia ts details Il yet detective
Some OF these deec will be cured by legislsnOnoters
by experience Although nave somelmTs lei lel H's -
is sill my purpose. while am honored win me slaoa
now Occupy give my best efforts to carrying out ana
upor the only sound basis OF leg nj practice
remain. deer sir. with great resyect, -,,,
NEw-YoRK, Dec y, 1850.
D D. Field Esg-DEAR SIR: You have requested my
opinion respecting The practical operations OF oar Sole VI
Procedure ana particularly that part ol u when aoolshes
the distinction between scons law and sulis IN equity
1 should have complied with your request earlier, out my
time has BEEN 20 much engro'seo Of ae a. 10 prevent my
doing 90 and row mus be very bret
Tie opportunities have had to Judge OF the new mode
Of proceeding. aid a. The practice under he Ooue nave
been sufficient satisfy Of the great advantage We
have gained the old system Of practice Tie common
lhT distinction of actions being abolished ana rs recess
sary CONSEQUENCE all forms of pleading a. heretofore
used and tie informal peadings described IN the Code
and only the therein allowed, being substituted,
seems 10 me An mprovement which think cannot fall 10
be acknowledged in proportion as the profession become
In he tss of causes have found difficulty in readily
understanding, from the pleadings as now generaly
framed what The disputed points or issues 70 wc9
those who called the work Of distbuve Justce
are now spared the necessity which was many times MS
agreeable TASK of non-sung plaintiff, or overriding
def nee merely because Of mistake I'm the form o acuon
or Of a plea or Of variance between the peadngs ana
the proof result Oentmes Of the most technical cnaac
ter producing expense and delay If not entirely defeating
the ends Ofiustice. 1870,
am likewise in favor Of The Code wherein il ha' abol-
ished The distinctions between actions ~ law atd bs 10
equity ] confess always partial 20 tue court OF
CbBcerv distinct Court but when II was oYerhrOWn
In our Slate and administration ofequy J1spudence
became blended in the tribunals with thatoi Jaw IN
der our Constitution which look effect IN 1870 mere
appeared to longer any very good reason Tor keep
ing up such distinction the equity side and HE law size
of the same Court in respect to It's proceedings Inc act
passed MAY r. 847 The purpose of carrying INTO elect
The provisions Of the Constitution in relation To the Juoca-
nv did indeed recognise thai Distinction and we were call
"a of rules for the practce IN
equity suits other In actions at law Al mat time
venred express hope that the necessity for such dis
tinction might soon be remOved aud think the Code has
wisely ordered uniform of proceeding In all ac'
tons both for law and equity .
am VIM WIN. T. McCOUN.
These letters show, not only that there are
Judges, and these are not all, who now administer
the Code in a friendly spirit and as 1t becomes
men appointed to administer, not to make the law,
but that when all their brethren, judicial and pro-
fessiona, shall be affected by their spirit, there
will be neither difficulty nor complaint. d. DF