The Shasta courier., 1858-10-09
Justice Made Cheap.

Justice Made Cheap.
Sir Wm Blackstone mentions as one of the evi-
dences of the beauty and impartiality of the
laws of England, that Justice was in the reach
of every man, the same being so very cheap"
AS an illustration of the beauty and impartiality
OF the law, and the cheapness of its admnistra-
ton, we might mention, that Judge Daingerfeld
was engaged in Weaverville at the last term of
the District Court, for rty-tsro days, whilst the
Clerk was taking testimony in writing, in open
court, in the case of Watson & Cooper VS.. VIM.
Ware and others, in which time about eighty
witnesses were examined. Had there been
jury, the jury fee alone would have amounted to
eleven hundred and ifty-two dollars. This sum,
the jury fee, has to be paid by the successful
party before he is entitled to have his verdict re-
corded, or judgment thereon. Add to this the
per diem of witnesses, the mileage, the attor-
ney's fees, clerks fees, Sheriffs fees and other
incidental expenses, and it is very apparent that
Justice is within the reach of the poor as well
as the rich But seriously speaking, is it not a
denial of Justice to the poor? A poor man has
no chance for Justice SO long as the laws exist
in their present form. No matter how small the
amount in dispute may be, if in court of record
the opposing party may demand jury, may re-
quire that the Clerk reduce the testimony Of the
witnesses to writing, may require delay from day
to day, and if at the end of this delay, the jury
should render verdict in his favor, he is in very
good credit if he can command money enough
to pay the jury fee so that he can reap the bene-
fit of the verdict.
If litigants wish the evidence of witnesses in
writing, let it be taken in vacation before Com
missioner and then let it be read before the jury.
But in our opinion it seems to be waste of
time, to take testimony which has to be used
before a jury, in writing, for the Supreme Court
have decided time and again that they will not
disturb the verdict of jury, unless in cases of
very gross abuse, and in such cases District
Courts are vested with the power to set verdicts
aside and grant new trials, so that it seems to
US to be useless expense, to keep jury weeks
and weeks, listening to witnesses, when the same
end might be attained by listening to the read
ing of depositions.
The practice is all wrong and should be a.
mended.
Our Court is now engaged in trying the case
of Mckinney Townsend against Smith and
others, IA water case,) and the Clerk is taking
down the testimony for the jury,-and besides
this, the plaintiffs and defendants have their
clerks preparing office copies for the use of their
attorneys and counsellors.
The jury fees per day is thirty-six dollars, the
Clerks fees probably as much more, the fees of
witnesses as much more, and the damages which
the party who receives verdict will recover,
will probably pay about one-fourth of the costs,
for the case will probably occupy the court for
three weeks or more.
But then the parties have the satisfaction of a
law suit and can verify the boast of English iu-
rists that Justice is alike within the reach of the
poorest as we'll as the richest in the land.
Can't we have change made in the practice
of our Courts this winter, and establish the old
Chancery rule of taking testimony in all cases,
or the common law rule of jury trials, where the
jury receive the evidence fresh from the lips of
the witnesses, and whilst the manner and matter
is fresh in their memories, decide the case. For
the sake of Justice, give US either fish or flesh" !"
and let not our courts be turned into instruments
of oppression instead of what they should be, a
medium for the redress of wrongs, and the en-
forcement of rights The present practice is a
denial ofJustice to the poor man, where his ad-
versary Is rich. The law requiring the Clerk to
take down the testimony of witnesses in writing
after the jury has been empanelled, should be
repealed.