, 1877-04-18
APPELLATE COURTS.
Representative Sherman's Compromise
Bill for Their Establishment,
An Important Measure for Relieving the
Supreme Court Of Minor
Cases.
What Is Thought OF It by Proni-
nent Lawyers.


OF tho Legislature, sent 4 carefully drawn bill
down TO Springfield for the establishment Of an
Appellate Court Tho object OF tho bill, a. fs
pretty well known, was 10 prevent the appeal Of
thousands Of small cases 10 The Supreme Cont,
where they accumulate for years 10 tho equal dis
gust Of the Judges and certain Of the tlganta who
desire to see them settled once and for at but 10
the Infinite satisfaction Ut those whose only
object is to secure the LAWS deay ON their side.
This bill was tho result of the best thought
Of tho Chicago Dar, aud, ~ prepared md adopted
BY that body, Nas regarded ~ an effective check
this growing evil, provided 1t ever passed both
Nonses. Dut probably no one dared to hope ~
much, and accordingly no ono has been dlsappoint.
cd At The result. The State Law Association took
4 hand in tho matter and draw up bill containing
fomo OF tho features Of tho original as wcll "A
others Of doubtful utility. Then two or three
billions legislators succeeded in lacking on various
amendments until tho bill finally came TO possess
- ueh yafy and ~ ls :.
!hs eonnttee e e p whoap' .io % 3s:'oas %af hi: Il
70 , W sSh \,
md mons of those abont whonc exrcdcncy or util-
" thsts were any reasonable dondts. II was con
viewed sS. s. t. H.
very beat b!!i that conld be drawn taking i Alto
asery 70 check he % a. sv IL Il %Re sRns tai
ais A. there was m9!e ' Q. !e.s doubt - e ,ho
aaersnss oi opinion i, to II real worth. rcpotscf
ekirmisled around nmonR tho lawyers yesterday for
es Il as sneh :, h.
d!!iealty II Kettiss holi q ny aessiIe oPinioa.
sna sinsssa ss Co. = @ lawyers
xs!a q
The frat gentleman who was found 10 have any
yerY definite understanding as To the atatus Of The
BILL and its provisions was
information. tic substitute had passed stho
R!syss. Hs; 's q! %Ss.3. / ss Ssp ''s t IT
NJ ys!aop sssasss; sae .t aos spssael Ss viii
-. e.a propofy 20 . sush uou.t ~ aeesien i
tIo sons as E %.Y s5ss
tisasste % f;oehed &c Sl'es o. ,so yaaty o
statute, and which under the statutes 20 to tho
'5s f. 5uss. e. sas@ T q
ffea IL ci.ssis ~ = tis ais'.st j
asa s't s5 the S 70 'fssd fss
ts r. In GSssgo wals ths other court. az
ad%sn xasa s
~ Appellate Court rsyerscs tho Judgment Of tho
Gss Gsa shs 1s.s the epia!on
not 10 bo used "a authority In any caso except tho
S, SGs III n sSet H. 11
stan*l .nereaatng number Of law reports. ;,
ons, ali q Tic really set!on.be features il ths
thought It would m.serasiiy lessen tho abo.s % oi
the Supreme Court and gtse that body timo to ss.
;ssa ts Re y ass. RSs s
Court, unless thoy were Cases In which franchise
Of freehold raa involved. AZ present cases were
dsiai oi iuseo iy toir being slai Up Two o. threa
years In tho Supreme Court. Under tho Appellate
Court ay.ssm the work Of the Supreme Court could
shey could dsToss -thetr time 70 moro In. @
.ss sns Il y va. %s pss,assS That his IL
thtse ye11,-se VI. 9ct positive whieh, md tbst
cd ~ one OF tho best features Of tho bill.
MH JAMES L. HIGH
H. r. ana
would accomplish the desired object of Relieving
f. sftss Rsfy f # a.
vded that these intermediate, appellate, courts
should % ve.,sd will sppeiIats ja4sis1on only
peal wilt OF should lIe from thclt decisions
sSs s Of H. hppats e': a.. aa ii
Al esmsal sasss' ani H. ~ . ss:es involving ssan:
va o4 eet
s" sa sass as ii
cases involrlnga franchise, or ffeellold or the
validity ota statute, should 70 absolutely to Tho
liz. iIieh thought tho provisions Of tho bill, aud
sho creation oi r. appellate coart IN seccsdsase
ss 1 e
tYen one.thffd. It was noteworthy fact that a