The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-03-11
OUR JUSTICES or TsE PEACE COuRTs


terials show strong inalination in
favor OF the bill to restrict the iurisdie4
tion Of the Justices OF tho peace. now
before tho Senate, venture TO eek your
Indulgence for u few words on the cub
ieet. It seems the only purport of tho
bill n TO restrict the jurisdiction TO the
districts Ia which the Justices are
eleetsa. You SAY "it In Il small bill.
against tthieh there can be not the least
objection" II Is the opinion OF many
lawyers and merchants. that there are
1raee objections to this bill and that 1t
ought not to pass. You complain that
institute suits In any justice court In
the city. which results In 'great infolt.
renieate to tho defeHdants." This
seems to mo to be- All entire
miBoonoeption Of the theory
OF the administration OF justice.
Courts being established for the pfotac-
ton Of private rights and the redress OF
private wrongs. the plaintiff III sup.
posed to be the party whose rights have
been invaded. The defendant being
| the wrongsdoer. 1t would he absurd to
claim that his convenience should bs
alone consulted. His convenience Ia
protected by the universal law that he
can snly be huea In the parish OF hia
eourta be restricted 10 less territorial
Jurisdiction than the ak dIRtriet courts
ef thia parish Tho difference In
amount does not change the relative
rights Of the parties. The district
courts are located In the central part OF
the city, and Yet the constant complaint
| Id that they are too remote from the
business centre. where. during court
hours, the majority OF litigantH and wit
nesses are always TO be found.
In fact. the proposed change would be
| found both expensive and inoonvenlent
10 both plaintiff and defendant. It IL
| idle TO say that the evils OF favoritism
or corruption on tho part oil Judges
would be corrected BY this means.
| Every one knows that once In otflce
the Justice OF The peace. like others Of
| his kind. elIngs to the ermine and never
willingly resigns. IL the only defend
ants who came before him we're resi-.
dents of bis ward or district. will It not,
humanity speaking, be q very strong in
! dueement for that judge to gain votes
| by deciding for the defendant VIII 1t
| not ba u temptation for tho citizens OF
| that ward or district TO create debts out
of their district. satisfied that their
| Judge will decide IN their favor. and
that they cannot be sued elsewhere
HUI YOU atl g~~@
| Ii has mvat unfortunately become notoriaus
that In zome Justices oours Of this city the de-
| fan5ant III u case has little or no chance 4 u
| Judgment ia his favar however good his case
may be. Ths Ia the oaEgrawth of vicious do.
| feet Ia the existing law whish offars y premium
| to Justices to sup efl tho plsntitf's claim.
| This Ia u most unfortunate statement.
I will not say the writer Of the above
seems to espouse the cause OF the de-
fendant, aud TO assume all plaintiffs are
rascals, for i may presume it Ii the
| natural impulse OF q generous nature to
Isympathize with the under dog In the
fight One thing Ia assured; !; the pres
eat bill so hotly advocated, will not
remedy the evil complained OF. The
remedy Ii that Justices and constabIes
should ID paid j salary, and not fees de
pending Upon HI ligation.
undsr me present law. ! justice 4,