, 1875-02-12
INVOLUNTARY MON.SufTS.
1A,sYEn'A It,EAa.

4 I.AwYEA's lnEAs.
II thS Editor of Ihe thrnq' Tr'onae: ....
GHtcAao Feb. l1.-Ti,s lt recommended by
4La Har Association IN the puhlect of inyolun-
tary uon-suits In actions ut law deBe1voa careful
consideration. It proyidaa that iu trIalA at law
II shalI be tie right Of tic defendant upon tho
cloao OF tho plaintiffs case, to move tic Court
for Judgment Of nou-Hult against tho p]atntiff,
aud the Court shall grant auct motion and enter
Judgment accordingly, whoneyer tho evidence
al1all be- insufficient to support vardct in favor
Of tho plaintiff, Appeals and wFita Of orror may
Ia prosecuted from Judgments 40 entered as in
ether caaea.
grave objection to this proposed law is, that
1t will increase tic labor Of tue Supreme Court
Tint Court should not hayo questions OF tho
weight OF evidence imposed upon 1t to any groat-
or degree than At present, but, on the contrary
ought to DO relieved from that class OF questions
now resting upon it by reason of tile law rcquir-
ipg it to review decisions refusing new trials
1t Ia we'll understood by lawyers TINT whether
tito oydonco given or ofore1 Is cutnnotont. aud
tends to prove alleged fact IN question OF iaw
Whether such evidence Is sufficient TO ebtablsll
tho alleged fsct, or 10 support q vet@tct nha'hg
sucll fact to bo true, ~ merely question Of
fact. Tho praotice should con!fno the atipEemo
Court to questions of law, aud the Cironit Court
should not be roq,lirel to order an involuntary
no,,-auit in cases wl,efo any ovldonce has beefl
Riven Tending 70 qraSo any given essential iast
mi.toj 10 the Jury to determine its weight, aud
tho Circuit Court should not iuter-
fore with that question until after tho
verdict, and tdon only ,,,, by granting
ttr's proof III Light, and where IT ia questionable
~ to whether ho ought to have verdict uro,
that alone, it often turna out before tho trial IL
closed that tho defendants witnesses bring out
ah,,ntant proof Tor the plaintiff. and tho whole
case turns upon tho dofsnso Hot up Ia reply to
plaintiffs caao.
Tho only safe doctrine is TINT no Court shall
undertake to judge Of tho weight Of evidence
until tho Jury have passed. upon that question.
At common law it Was IN tho discretion Of tile
Court to order a no1-Buit. No defendant war
untitled to It n right. This proposed statute
is made for defendants, and is not fair:
LAWYER.
Tho following ia the statute referred to-
recently Recommended to the Etase Legislature
by tho Nar Association
BrLl for act to amend the praetics In courts oi
fsne @ caE gsS1 T! ssns spa herr
after 10 allowed III civil action to the Rulings Or t!e
cistaus Of tac Court oyerru9 naotns ior ~" trinla
nor to the finding of tho Curt TO tho tlety where tG
1ssl,ca of fact submitted to the uat1rt Without
jury nor shall any Kuch ltcisiona hareatthr nae be
aspHne for error In the supreme Cpsrt bit the rules
Of tbs common law shall govern In that regard fn al
cases. :.
btcand-"hen Appeals TO the slrrcfne Court arc tila
sss1 for want of prosecution after the proper int
of she transcripts " hs appellant or appellants thss.
shall bo allowed y the Supreme Cnrt tn favor OF tt
nppel!oa appsllees. ard agatnst te appellant. dam
anes Ut tue following ra!es upon tue judgment appeal.
I'd from, at ia to ay u per cent upon la an1uut VI
to tl80. and PR cent Tho amount over sf0 anu VI
10 Il Q0U md per cent Hon tho cxcoss over 600
and. iu such cascs, II tue aptce or sppelees shal
hare led III such Court PRINTED brefs or argu1nents
tie Court shall alao Rlow daagss to appellee up
peltccs reasonable compensation for tho preparation
printing and presentation Of eurh rfcfs arguments
or briea and argununts, not leas than S!o nnr os'
than $l00, sud Judgment ahal1 be given in the Surrcm
Court aaaluz ths appeillut appellants for al aucl
damages. -..-.......-.... ......-
Th,Td-1n cssra Of appeals to tho Supreme Court
when the Judgment Rrpealsa from y affirmed urol
hearing, tlIu SupFune Court i1ay. IL 1t appeass th
thcrs waH probable ground Of error III the record
aud thai tho appG sasins to the Court to have heel
appellant fur damages. nF provided in thu foregoing
section.
Faarth--on tho oycrrnlihE OF a1 motions made ii
i tbs HuPrsmo Court, tho opposite party shall hav,
judgment aHainat tho party making such lnofons f0
the cost Of said rnooils embracing attorneys fc
ot SIC, to bs taxed ~ part Of such cossa.