New-York daily tribune., 1859-01-11
Il was, We believe, that famous French law re-


former, the Chancellor d'Augesse,u, VIII, replied
TO some suggestion tending greatly to curtail the
expense and delay Of legal proceedipgs-" But,
"suppose theee reforms adopted, what would be-
"come Of the legal profe ssoni" The reforming
Chancellor, therefore, out Of regard for the pro.
,siop. chose to limit his labors to rendering the
Pre- edings Of the Courts little es repusnant TO
reaon and common sense; at the same time care
fully avoiding TO curtail the profits Of Lis fellow
laborers in the fed Of jurisprudence A similar
tenderness for the members Of the leg. profession
is not uncommonly eXhbited-of courie, not con-
scioudy yet not the less certainly for all !hat-by
our legal msgnates. They seem disposed, indeed,
no less than the French Chancellor, to apply 10 tho
lawyers that maxim Of the Mosaic code" Thou
"sbalt not muzzle the OK that treadest out the
"corD," AID that, too, even though the said OK
may now and then exb,bi, disposition to come in
for the lions share. Very few css<s involving a
large amount Of money, if they once fall within the
province Of the Courts, are ever brought TO a
Judicial decision, without giving the lawyers q
pretty fair mouthfu. Take the case of the Par.
rish will, for example. After the taking aud print
of we know not how many learned advocste',
tho Surrogate at last arrived at . decision.
These proceedings mus. have put iato the
pockets Of the legal profession pretty round sum
Of MONEY. But tie bone has plenty Of meat on it
yet, and the Supreme Court, to which an appeal
had been taken seems to bave thought it quite un.
reasonable that go large an estate should be taxed
with the law cost, however large they may have
been, Of but q single trial. To be sure the only
part of the Surrogate's decision As to which they
could suggest any question was of sort Of earthly
consequence to the only parties who had appealed
from it, Still, on the ground that for other reasons
the appellants had been made parties to the suit
and, taking also into account the glorious uncer-
taDty Of the law and the possibility, therefore, not
to say probability, that the po nts Of the Surro-
gates decision which appear perfectly 6rm and
solid to the Supreme Court msy Jet be upset by
the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, With
sort of professional logic, which, We must confess,
rise. little above our dull lay apprehension, re-
cognizes right in the appel n,nts to re-htsate
point in which they have no interest whatever
and therefore sends back that point to be tried
over again before Jury. We sincerely hope that
the doubts upon the testimony a. laid before them
in print which the Supreme Court complain o.
may, BY this means arrive at . satisfactory
solution, no matter how horribly the poor
lay gentlemen thus pressed into the service
may be bored, nor how long they may be kept from
their business; for if half the Witnesses produced
before tie Surrogate are examined before the jury
il will take at least three months 70 get through
with them. No matter how totally these poor
jurors may be befoeeed upon . question quite out
of their rsrge, and BY which the Supreme Court
copfe~es iself to be puzzled, provided their be-
wlderment shall result in clearing up the doubts Of
the Supreme Court, and light thus be brought out
Of daIAness, wio can say that the time, labor and
morsy thus employed have been expended In vain :
There is another view, Also in which this reference
10 a Jury viii doubtless Commend itself 10 the high
appreciation Of the profession. Perhaps the jury
may not agree. Perhaps, if they do agree, their
verdict may be set aside-in fact for . moderate
premium We would insure it, being set aSde-for
bunders ana mi.directiOns on the part Of the pre-
aiding Judge. In either Of those cases there must
be new trial, and thus the suit maj 90 on 1nde6.
pitely, or at least till the lawyers have hsd their
full share of the money.
Fortunately, 10 thN case. I'll the parties can
ahoed to wait They are u, We believe, 70 rich