Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1875-03-17
AN 0ufRAaR Upon rHE prnpLr.

allotted eeventy-ive days without bring
ing forth a single really beneficial piece
OF legislation. One Of the greatest
specimens Of its bungling is found in
the Jury Fee Bill" which it heedlessly
passed over the Governors veto without
the slightest attention to the very practi.
cal aud sensible suggestions he made.
We have already published the full text
Of the bill, and we suppose the general
reader to be acquainted with its pro-
visions. It does not abolish the jury in
civil cases when not demanded, as many
have supposed. In civil cases the party
is compelled to try his case before a jury
as before, whether he is willing to pay
for the expense of the luxury or not.
In this respect the old law is unchanged,
and it " in this very respect that the
lawyers and people generally believed
some wholesome legislation was needed,
Their opinion was and is that the
judge should try all cases where a jury
was not demanded by either party.
By the provisions Of section l Of this
act, jury fees are taxed and collected as
other costs. All costs are taxed against
the unsuccessful party in the first in
stance, and if they cannot be collected
they are taxed against the successful
party under the provisions of section
1904 OF the code, which reads as follows:
AN costs accrued at the instance Of
the successful party, which cannot be
collected out Of the other party, may be
recovered on motion, by the parties enti-
tied to them, against the successful
party" Under the provisions of this
section Of the code, plaintiffs and appel
liant defendants, though successful in
the final termination of the suit, are re-
quired to pay the costs as the law is now
administered. Therefore section l Of
this act taxes the successful party with
$24 per day while his case is IN trial,
aud gives him no option to dispense with
asjnry. A plaintiff who has been sue
cessful in the suit, but has had the costs
to pay and attorney fees, besides losing
the collection Of his debt, is unfortunate,
but how much more deplorable is the
condition Of the defendant who has been
sued for a debt he never owed or for
damages he never inflicted, when he is
compelled to pay the enormous cost i'm
posed by this bill, when he has finally
gained the iniquitous lawsuit on appeal
to a higher court. This act provides
that the State shall pay the jury fees in
cases in lorna ponperis. To the average
legislator this may appear to be a be-
inefficient provision for the protection Of
the poor. But the fact is notorious
among the members OF the bar
Of the State that an honest
poor man will very rarely take
the pauper's oath. His selfrespect,
his respect for his family and friends,
will not permit him to take it, although
his financial condition will justify it, and
he generally finds the means, or his
friends do for him, to give a c%ost,bond
and carry on the suit. Whilst there are
some honorable exceptions, yet the fact
is that the pauper's oath is generally
taken by INSCRIPTIONS and bad men.
They use it as an inexpensive mode of
harrassing others with actions for dam
ages aud other yexatious lawsuits. The
shyster generally does a large pauper
oath practice. In many of these actions
for damages, where the jury are bound
to find nominal damages against the de-
PENDANT rather because it is the law than
because il is just to do so, the jury fees
will often amount to several hundred
dollars, particularly where there has been
mistrials by reason Of hung %juries; &C
lions Of e%jectment, involving as they do
questions Of title to property, generally
require so%metimeto try. The defendant
is generally poor. Under the provisions
Of this act the cost will fall on the plain
Tiff whether he is successful or not. The
cost in many cases will exceed the value
Of the property 1t is very doubtful
whether section one Of this act is consti.
t%utional in 80 far as it taxes the success
full party with costs, as the constitution
requires the subject matter of every act
to be stated in the preamble. aud the
preamble TO this act entities it an act to
tax the losing party with the Jury fees.
Il is very doubtful if the services
Of a juror can be appropriated to
the public use on the security
for judgment provided by this act. His
services cannot BE appropriated to the
public use without just compensation by
law" Can a man be compelled to serve
as a Juror o. the credit Of a cost bond
which he had no voice in taking and
then be compelled to wait for many
Years until the cause has been finally
ended in the Supreme Court, after it has
gone through the process OF mlstrlal,
new trial, appeal, remanding for new
trial, and been finally enjoined IN chan
Gerry and Injunction dissolved and money
collected nv the Sheriff on execution2
II our legislators insist on this obnoxious
law remaining, let them inject a few
humane features into 4 By enactlnE a