Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-12-06
Eli efellaneoue.
THE COUNTY COURTS OF ENGLAND,

Idk COUNT1 COUHTS Ot ENGLANU, g.
1.-THE following article (attributed to the pen of
Richard II. Dana, Jr., of Boston, bears testimony
to the ~propriety Of the reform, in relation to the
admission Of parties to testify in their own SUITS.
1t also shows that Courts Of Cancellation are prac.
tically and successfully in operation in England.
The article is full of useful Information about the
judicial system Of England.
From the Boston Law Reporter for Novomberl
A court, without lawyer and without a jury, is
q novelty, if not an anomaly. Such, practically
10 an English County Court.
By the invitation of Mr.. Adulphus, known to
the profession as a learned reporter and leading
b%arrister, and now a county court Judge, | attenN-
&c q session of his court, in the Mary-le-bone dis
trict of London. The courthouse is a large build
ing, with its name printed on a large sign over the
door, and easily found 10y the poorer class Of suit.
os who may seek for it. The lower story is occu-
pied by the Offices Of the registrar and OF baillhS,
and the upper by the courtroom. 1t was about
noon; the courtroom was well filed with parties
and witnesses; the Judge sat upon the bench, in a
barrister's wig and gown; the registrar sat below
him, as does the clerk Of our courts. and there was
q reasonable attendance Of bailiif and other Off
GERS.
The course Of proceedings may be best presented
TO the reader by II familiar description.
The registrar calls a case. John Lucas against
William Brown. John Lucas-John Lucas is
John Lucas in court !" calls the baillh. John Lu-
cas- appears, and takes his stand in the witness.
box, on the left of the judge, and is sworn. Mr.
Brown is called in the same manner, and tai es his
place at the opposite box. They are in full sight
OF each other, separated by the registrars desk
There are no written pleadlngs, but only the name
and descriptions of the parties, and the plaintiff
bill, made out like a s~hop-bill, and sworn to. The
Judge reads over the bill to the plaintiff, and ex.
am:nes him upon it, and requires him TO tell his
story, when and how the contract was made, the
goods delivered, and why the bill was not paid
He then asks defendant if be wishes to examine
the plaintiff. Mr.. Brown is quite ready to do so,
ana a series of questions is put and replied to-,
which developes the real issue quite us well as the
best special pleading. Perhaps the very first ques-
ton by the defendant shows that he has no defence
except as TO the mode of payment; or else, that
the dispute turns on the value or conditiul of some
Of the articles.
"Mr. Lucas, didn't my wife tell you that the
pitcher was broken. and that the plates were not
worth more then two shillings ?"
''Then you admit" says the judge, "that you
received all these articles, Mr., Brown
81 don't deny that, your honor"
Have you got them now
Eyes, sir?"
The Judge then intervenes as q dav's-man be-
tween them, and after a little talk between the par
ties and the judge, and perhaps an examination of
Mrs. Brown as to the condition of the pitcher and
plates, the plaintiff deducts a little from his bill,
and takes a judgment by instalments, at 81 los.
per month.
The next case is not contested. The defendant
has been duly summoned, but does not appear
Still Judgment is not given by default, but the
careful and conscientious judge examines the
plaintiff under oath, and, if need be, his witnesses
and gives Judgment in t0ro conScientiP, perhaps,
too, by instalments, unless the plaintiff shows that
the defendant is well able to pay at once, or Is
open to q suspicion of absconding or of concealing
property.
Several intermediate cases are rapidly disposed
of, there being no defence, or q defence easily yield
ed to, or easily broken down by a few inquiries;
and then comes one of more difficulty, whether
certain services were gratuitous or for pay. Both
parties and their wives are examined, indeed al
of both households. Here again the earnest ant
unskiltul testimony of the wives, and the untutor
ed questions put by the parties on cross-examina
ton, let much light into the case, and the Judge /
able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Indeed
with u little watch against irreleyance, the cas-
seems TO II itself. The next is q tort, and her
j lis s on plain enough that an assault was com
mitted, but after a provocation offered, and that /
is only a question Of damages.
In another case, the defendant owns that h
ought to pay the debt, and complains that the plain
tiff, being a rich man has pressed him. This state
ment, the rich man, who is n grocer ut the stree
corner, denies, and to show his truth, offers alarg
extension of payment by instruments without IN
terest, which the judge advises the defendant t
be satisfied with; and judgment is entered accord
ingly, and both parties go away better satisfied
than they came.
Then comes the case of a man who had obtaine,
a judgment some time before, which the defendan
does not pay, and a sort of chancery examination
is made into the state Of the defendants affairs
on a chaIg e that he has socreted property.
After this fashion, in a session of six hours
from ten O'Clock in the morning until four in tn
afternoon, the learned judge despatched a tria
list which | am quite sure enc of our courts, aide
by two counsel on each side, and by twelve citizen
called from their business on purpose, would hay
needed as many days to I'd dispose OF.
There was but one lawyer in attendance, and b
appeared only in two causes, and rather shabbil
in those. In one, he cross-examined the plaintl
and his witnesses severely, and when called upo
for the defence, had none to offer. His only hop
was to break down the plaintiffs case. In the otf
err, he attempted a defence by calling witnesses t
some Indirect matter; but the judge told him tina
if he did not call the defendant and his wife, VIII
knew all about the main facts, he would not tToubl
him to go into an Indirect defence. In each cast
am quite sure there would have been no defenc
but for the attorney. and the only effect Of his il
tervention was that his clients had his services t
pay for, and a large bill Of costs a~djudGed agains
them.
If the amount ut stake exceeds e5. either part
may require a jury as n matter Of right; and tn
judge may in any case, at his discretion. order
jury, on motion Of either party; yet in no case OF
the entire docket for this term, was a jury demand
ed, and | was told that it is very rarely that one j
called, although the jurisdiction of the court eS
tends to ESQ, which, on a comparison OF the cOndi
tion of the humber classes in the two countries
is worth more than $3.50 in America. 1t woul
not be just to say that this results solely frol
greater confidence in a Judge decision. The d.
lay, increased costs, and the expense of counst
which a jury renders almost necessary, also col
tribute to the result.
Icould not but be struck with the evident an
decisive advantage of admitting, which usual
amounts to requiring the testimony Of parties.
prevents many suits being brought at all prevent
many defcnces being attempted, and shortens TT
ais. When this system was introduced, making
revolution in the common law, it was opposed b
many of The judges of the superior courts. Tt
last Parliamentary examination showed thG
twelve of the fifteen judges of the Westminstt
courta uara satishad nf ina advnntoge and now