, 1874-12-07

lAnSA~o " IAc f0tAA1ts l. uH NoAAN Ns"sNN'-E
argues that tile Jury arc made by stnt,,to the
judges of tho law; and, having passed upon
1t, tile only recourHe Is mn appoal. Ih''A the
snpromo Court is constantly asked to roviow |
absurd vordiots which would nover llavo boon
rendered If tho Judge could havo cxorcisotl |
his natural functions Of interpreting tue law
md instrnoting tho jury accordingly. 1t is
evident TINT tho next Legislature can do q
good work by ropca1ing these old statutes.
e---..----.-----
THE BupREME CDuRT-EX0EpT10Ns AND
USELE3B OPINIONS.
The reduction Of tho bill of exceptions to
something lko ita proper proportions would
doubtless meet with the enthusiastic oppoai-
tion Of ali tho Circuit Court Clerks through.
out the stato. In tho great majority Of
cases the bill Of exceptions constitutes by
far tho largest portion Of tho record. For
copying 1t into tho record tho Clerks charge
certain s1,n per job, 0r pago, and the bust.
tesH is profitable. Copyiats can be hired
very ol,eap1y, aud tho margin between the
amount pnil by the Clerks to their copyists
and tho amount received from tho party Or
doring the record is very liberal. Tor the
record to which reference was mado in o
former nrticlo tho Clerk charged md re-
coiycd S'lo5, whilo tho entire expense In
cttr1od by tile Clerk did not, in a1l probability,
exceed $40. At all evcnts, tho work Gun oe
done for that sum. Thoro aro doubtless
largo number Of lawyors WHO would pro-
tost against tho proposed change. Tho
present system Is tho lazy mans method.
lilo preparation of n bill of exceptions
at present demand from tho attorney neither
labor nor brains The work il performed by
the shorthand reporter, and nil TINT tile at-
torney ambitious to tako O caso to the su-
promo Court has to do by way Of preparation
is to take n transcript Of tile shorthand ro-
porter's notes md dlo them rs his bill Of cx-
coptions. Under tho proper system, however,
ho would be compelled to know something
about his case, and to be nble to put that
knowledge into shApe. If ho Ind my points
upon which m appeal ought to bo taken, he
would have to present them. If ho were ill.,
able to dotlis hinsolf Lie would be driven to
ono Of two alternatives to hire somo lawyer
who could do it, or for tho while turn student
and learn. The general public, tho parties
upon lis situntion US Que calling for very
active sympathy. But, aside from tho
reforms which we have indicated, others
of great importance can be suggested.
Tho Supreme Court ought not to be
required to write opiniona in every case
brought before them, nor should ritual Of
the cause upon its merits bo expected at their
hands. Where the Judgment Of the Court
below is against evidence, they should re-
verse it, but it ought not to he demanded by
them to review mere questions Of fact where
tho evidence was conflicting. There aro
scores Of cases taken to that Court, at every
term, which involve questions Of no earthly
consequence to my ono except tho parties.
These cnscs involve no 1egal principles and
frequently present no legal questions Whit
over In these tho Court should not be re-
quircd' to write opinions, nor should such
cases bo reported. III t. recent volume ct the
Illinois Reports there arc thiyty-one cases re-
ported, and some Of them Mt length, which
| nro Of no conceivable importance to tie pub
| lie or to the profession. In neither Of these
| cases should written opinions hEyo
| been required, nor should either Of theae
cnscs 1ave been reported. To the Court
should be left tho privilege of determining in
what cnses opinions should be written antl
whit cases should be reported. Thus tho
1abors Of tho Court might be greatly 1cssoned,
The number Of reports reduced, and their ac-
tual value greatly enhanced. It is useless,
aud worse tllan useless to cumbor our re-
| ports with casea which present questions
| y hich have been repeatedly passed upon. OF
what conceivable use is IN opinion of the
Supreme Court detailing at great length the
evidence in |, causo before them, and finally
reaching tho conclusion that, as tho evidence
is conflicting, they will not disturb the judg.
nent of the Court below? Wl,at interest has
the public or the profession in knowing
that in particular case tho Judgment
Appealed from had, in tho opinion of thu
Supreme Court, no evidence whatever to sup
port it7 Undoubtedly such conclusion pos
sesses grent interest to the parties litieant
but the general public and the profession al
large derive from reading such opinions