Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1874-01-08
~eTE7 Rural Justice.

~eFEa Rural Justice . 8 "
The place was Waupaca, Wis, and
the time was last Friday. A shoe
maker, In a fit of absent mindedness.
sold pair of shoes which had been left
with him for repairs. Thereupon the
owner of the shoes sued the careless
Crispin for their value. The shoe
owners lawyer was Monagan, and the
shoemaker's lawyer was Morgan. The
trial came on. The shoemaker was on the
stand, but his answers did not suit
Monagan. Did he go to taking excep-
tions and appealing to the Court and
making out a long list of grievances, SO
that he could frame motion for appeal
and keep the shoemaker and shoe
owner in hot water for months to come,
as Mr.. Scammon or any other city htl-
giant, for instance, would have done
Not at all. He settled the matter in
three .words-carelessly remarking to
the shoemaker that he was liar. The
shoemaker thereupon quietly referred
the remark to his counsel, Morgan, for
advice. Morgan, instead of numbering
up the case with suits for Islander or
libel, acted for his client Immediately
by knocking Monagan down and pound
ing him little. Now, observe the i'm
partial manner in which justice is adj
ministered In Waupaca. The Sheriff
did not interfere, deciding that he had
no jurisdiction. Some of the jury
wanted to interfere, but the rest would
not let them, declaring tht they were
not trying that case. After Morgan and
Monagan were satisfied, the Court took
official notise of the "a ct arms turn
affairs had taken, by informing Mona
gan that it served him right, and or
dered the case to proceed. At the close
of the case, the jury refused to deliver
their verdict until their fees were paid,
and, the money not being forthcoming,
the foreman walked off with the verdict
IN his pocket. Why shouldn't he? OF
course such proceeding would not do
In Chicago, for if juries refused to give
verdicts here until they got their fees,
we should never have any verdicts. But
In Waupaca, where justice is admins
tered on basic principles, such pro-
ceeding was eminently correct. The
Waupaca jury was employed to procure
paid in fees. They we're not obliged to
deliver the article they had for sale un-
less the cash was forthcoming, and that
foreman only indicated the inalienable
right of Meum and Tuum when he
walked off with the verdict The next
day after the trial, Monagan met the
shoemaker on the street. Morgan, the
shoemaker's counsel, as we have said,
had already given Monagan beating.
Monagan, therefore, of course, owed
somebody else beating. 1t could not
be Morgan, because Morgan was not
acting for himself, but for the shoe
maker The shoemaker was the legiti-
mate creditor, and, therefore, Morgan
settled the debt by pounding the shoe
maker.
Up to this point the reader will OBJ
serve that exact justice has been melted
out without any unnecessary legal rou-
tine or red tape, and without the
tedious delays which characterize the
practice of law in the cities. The basis
was simple, abstract justice without
reference to Coke, Blackstone, or Lyttel-
ton, or the practice of lawyers in other
States. In Waupaca, it is immaterial
what has been done to defaulting shoe
makers elsewhere. And yet justice is
not wholly satisfied. The shoe-owner
hasn't got his shoes back, but we have
no doubt that Waupaca viii find some
way of getting them, and the shoemaker
owes somebody a beating, although ii
is not clear to whom he owes it. Most
probably Waupaca will decide it is the
owner of the shoes who has made the
shoemaker all this trouble. To com
plete this cheerful picture of rural JUS
tice In its virgin purity, it only remains
for the Court to whale the foreman vino
walked off with the verdict, and for the
foreman to clean out the County Treas
urer for not paying for the verdict. :
the whole, the Waupaca way of dc
things has its virtues. IL is simple, e1e-
mentary, and quick, and has no non.
sense about it. Such suit in Chicago
would have lasted for years, and before
it came to a termination would have
been so full of declarations, affidavits
rejoinders, surrebutters, and super
sedeases, that no one could tell what il
was about originally, or whether there
was ever pair of shoes or shoe or &
shoemaker in it at Chicago
Tribune.