Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-08-19
The Judiciary Amendment.

correspondence oil the heglster'
SPENCER, w. Va, August Is.
The REGISTER does not seem TO favor
the judiciary amendment, and yet does
not directly favor the County Court
System" The great objection to the
REGISTER proposition OF transferring the
law business from the County to the
Circuit Courts Is that there are but two
terms OF the Circuit Court year, so
this would make litigation entirely too
slow. When a continuance gives
lease OF six months, extra efforts are
made by those who want time to secure
continuances. Again, il all the
law business were transferred to
the Circuit Courts there would be so
much business in them that under the
present arrangement il would be impos-
sible to transact it. For these two
reasons the REGISTER plan is impractical
BILE
But il is said that the present Consti-
tuition provides for such alternative
court system as the counties may desire.
There are two great objections to the
counties availing themselves OF the 43d
Section of Article Of the Constitution.
First, it is too expensive: and second,
il makes too many terms OF
Court. This is serious objec-
ton 10 the present court system.
Two terms of the Circuit Court and
four terms of the County Court a year,
making six terms OF court for suitors,
witnesses, jurors, lawyers and specta-
tors to attend are entirely too many,
and it is too expensive. Three terms Of
a court held by Judge "learned in the
law" will save nearly one-half the time
and expense.
The judiciary amendment proposes
much more efficient and much less ex-
pensive system than the present or any
| patchwork that can be made on 1t.
| This gives us three terms of court year,
| one-half of the present number, so that
suitOrs, witnesses, jurors, lawyers and
| spectators will save nearly one half OF
their time, and the people will be saved
nearly one-half the expense while the
efficiency will be nearly doubled.
The police and fiscal officers OF the
counties under the amendment will be
attended to by court that has nothing
else before it, and the members thereof
will be in office long enough to make
| themselves familiar with the business
so they can intelligently attend to it.
This is not the case with the present
| system.
Again, under the amendment the
petty litigation will be done at home at
the expense of the litigants. 1t is re-
markable that the people should be re-
| Quired to bear the expense OF this petty
| litigation. / have case in mind that
illustrates this. 4 suit was instituted
! before a Justice on an account for thirty
dollars. The defendant moved the case
TO Court and filed offsets to the amount
of thirty-hve dollars. Two days were
spent in the trial at an expense OF $40
for the Court and $50 for the panel OF
| Jurors in attendance upon the Court,
IN lkingSl10, ofwhich thecounty gets back
81 Jury costs, leaving SlO4, that the
taxpayers pay to settle this difficulty
between two neighbOrs, when the case
might and ought to have been tried be-
| fore the Justice at much less expense to
| the litigants and at no expense to the
taxpayers. Surely the people have
borne the present system long enough,
and will, at the first opportunity, rid
| themselves of it.
But some smart constitutional eX-
FOUNDER says that under the amend
ment we will have a County Court IN
every district, instead of one in each
county. The author of this brilliant idea
knows that it is not true. The jurisdic-
| ton of the Justice in law cases will be
enlarged, but he will have no jurisdlc-
ton OF chancery business, nor of the
county matters. Collections can be en-
forced before Justice at fraction of
the costs to the debtor that are incurred
in Court, and in litigated cases there
will be an appeal 10 court learned in
the law, instead of the present appeal
to the County Court, whose deci-
sion on the most difficult ques-
tons of law is final. 1t is GER
tainly a great objection to the present
system that the litigation is at the ex-
pense of the taxpayers, and the recon-
mendation of the amendment system
that much Of the litigation will be at
the expense OF the litigants.
1t is true that the new system may
lnjure the business of the lawyers, but
although he is lawyer, the writer says,
| let us have the greatest good to the
greatest number, let the taxpayers re-
lieve themselves, and let the lawyers
take care of themselves. j. q. ).