Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1869-11-18
Discussion ON the Bill relating to
Justices of the Peace.

Discussion ON the Bill relating to
Justices of the Peace.
The following is an abstract of the de-
bate in the House of Representatives, on
Tuesday, Nov. 8, on the bill relating to
Justices of the Peace:
Special order.-House bill in amend
ment of section 70, chapter 81, general
statutes, relating to justices of the peace,
was taken up as the special order of this
time, the question being shall the bill be
read the third time.
| Mr.. Richmond of Woodstock said the
bill changed the present law, only in
| giving jurisdiction to justices of the
peace when the sum in controversy did
not exceed $40. He refesged to the petty
cases that are accumulatfng in the county
courts, which should never find their way
there. One casei in Washington County
the past term occupied five days in the
trial. at an expense to the State of $175
to $500 per day, and the verdict returned
was only $12. He thought such cases
ought to be kept out of the county
courts. They were prosecuted from mere
spite.
Mr.. Gleed of Morristown thought the
bill ought to pass. Many men preferred
| to pay their debts at the end of a county
court execution, rather than pay what
they honestly owe without suit. He
thought no appeal should be allowed on
SO small sums as at present. Let these
| little suits be settled at home, where the
parties are well known, and not compel
the poor man to go into the county conrt
| to get his Just dues. This bill passed the
House last year, and was killed in the
Senate. He hoped the bill would become
law this year.
Mr.. Bull of Hancock favored the bill.
Mr.. Hinckley of Chelsea, said he
thought there were some arguments
against the bill. 1t gave creditor an
/ opportunity to sue debtor into distant
town, among entire strangers, and recover
verdict, when there was really no Justice
in the claim. This bill would cut off his
right to appeal, and he would be COM
PEELED TO pay an unjust claim. He
thought there should be right to appeal
Mr.. Dickey of Bradford, thought the ef-
feet of the bill would be directly opposite
to what was claimed for it by its friends,
and would lead to litigation Most of the
suits now brought before justices are for
sums not exceeding ten dollars, because
there is no appeal to such cases. and suits
are more likely to be sustained Such
suits are usually vexatious, and oftentimes
for trumped up and imaginary wrongs.
lie thought if the amount within the final
jurisdiction of justices was increased to
forty dollars, it would increase the
amount of litigation in the State, aud
more suits would be brought than If the
law should remain as it now is. He would
rather let down the bars and allow an APP
peal in every case. Men would bring
suits when they knew there was no appeal.
that they would not bring if an appeal
was allowed.
Mr. Bull Of Hancock, said he thought
the remarks Of the gentleman from Brad
ford came with poor grace. 1t is known
that he is lawyer, and il looked as though
he was advertising his goods.
Mr.. Boyce of Faystou thought there
we're merits in the bill, and if it should
become law, it would prevent many yex-
atious appeals, when there was really no
defense to the payment Of d debt, but an
appeal was taken just to make the plain
tiff pay u bill Of costs. The little cases
tried III cur county courts prevented the
i attending 70 the larger and more import.
ant cases. lie thought there were d thou
sand reasons for the passage If the bill to
/ one against IT.
Mr.. Glced said the argument Of the gem
ticman from Chelsea vas not against this
bill, but in favor Of the abolition Of all
justice courts The argument that a
court would not do justice because il IL
trying stranger proved too much tho
! aggrieycd party could appeal to the coun-
ty court, and instead Of falling into the
hands Of six thieves and one or two law
yers, he would fall into tho haude If twelve
/ thieves, AZ well the whole bar The ar
gument would favor higher court than
the supreme court OF this state, lost that
court should do wrohg.
! Dir. Hinckley said he did bcliope ia -
higher court-the high court Of heaven,
whore there il no corruption or error !;
and he desired to see the earthly courts
raised above their present standard and
made as near perfect as any earthly tribu-
nal could be. He thought justice courts
necessary, but justices of the peace were
not generally class of men who thor
oughly understood the law, and parties
! in snch courts ought to have the right to
II higher and better court Ii we pass
/ this law, We must forever -hut our u,outh
/ if We are hereafter robbed If our rights
/ by some miserable scouudrel, who may sue
us d hundred miles or more away from our
homes, and among set Of strangers and
scoundrcls
| Mr.. Dickey said we have the right to
appeal to the county court, and from there
TO the supreme court, and he had more
chance of receiving justice.
Mr.. Page of Hydepark said the argu-
/ rnent Of the yesntiernau frnta Marriatoup
reminded him of tho old coon, who, when
the gun was pointed at him, asked Of the
| hunter If his name was Boone; Wasn't it
Dave Crockett Reporter, and being
told that it was, he said lie was dead
cSon and would come down, and he need
not fire. So in Lamoiile county, when a
suit was brought by the gentleman from
Morristown, they generally came down
rather than be shot down.
Mr.. Niles Of Thetford, briefly opposed
the bill, and Mr.. johnson Of Sherburne
favored IL.
Mr.. Boyce OF Fayston, further favored
the bill, and called for the yeas and nays
on the question.
Mr.. Garfield Of Arlington, briefly stated
that II this bill was passed, no thought
| greater justice would be done Ia small
suits. The rules and technicalities Of the
courts were not Of no much account a.
that we have justice done TO tho parties.
He thought tho provisions Of this bill
we're wholesome, and he hoped tho bill
would pass.
The yeas and nays being sailed, wsre -
follows: ayes 136, nays 81. So the third
reading Of the bill was ordered.