New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-03-09
CIVIL COURTS AND THE CIFIL CODE.

awo SUBJECTS CONSIDERED BY THE BAR AssoCIA-
TON LAST NIGHT.
Two important subjects were considered by TIE
Bar Association last evening The first. introduced
BY the report of the Judiciary Committee, was IN
regard 10 proposed changes in the Civil District
Courts of this city. 1t was shown that the ter die
tricts into which the city is divided varied
very much in size and importance
from the First District, which contains
only about SO 900 persons, to the Seventh, which
contains over 100000. Some OF the Justices are
engaged only two days in the week. and none Of
them more than sree days be ts T 81
suD0rdinates in each court Is $4,000 year. Tho
report recommended the abolition of four of these
courts aud the division of the city into six districts,
each Of which should contain about 900 600 per-
sons. The report was adopted and the commlttee
was directed to present to the Legislature bill
providing for such changes.
The other subject discussed was the Civil Code
which is now being considered by the Legislature
and commonly known as the " Field Code" after its
compiler and c0difeF. David Dudley Field. IL was
first drawn mp by Mr.. Field about thirty years ago
and again and again it has been considered by the
Legislature GenerallyIt has been refused admission
and at other times it has come in only to be thrown
out again. When the Code of Civil Procedure
was allowed TO lecome law, it was currently re-
ported that the friends of the Field Code withdre
their opposition only with the understanding that
the Civil Code should afterward be made law
and it is said that it is brought before the LegIsa
ture again in accordance With this plan.
Most of the speakers at the Bar Association last
evening opposed this Code because, they SAID it
contained dangerous innovations, AMI because its
codfeation of the common law in regard to domestic
relations personal property, real property would
embarrass and impede the course obligation and un-
settle everything that now was settled and deter
mined. But with one two exceptions all the
speakers were forced to acknowledge that they had
NOS examined this CODE and did not actually know
what its PROVISIONS we're or what 1t intended TO
provide for When the sweeping assertion was made
that it was intended TO o0dify all the common law
applicable to litigation IN this State the expression
81 antagonism to il was still stronger. MIR. Mann.
4 1r. Mitchell Mr. Horn blower, ex-Judge ShipmaD
and several others denounced il. although Mr. Horn
blower was the only one whe had looked into
T. Mr. karbury said that the situation-with
Mr. Tbrooys dreadful book " already. and this
shis nav code threatening like an avalanche to fall
npon them--was appalling. But be thought the
NEST shocking thing about the matter was the
ignorance Of the provisions Of this Civil Code
shown by the members Mr. Marbnry admitted
that be was as ignorant rs the rest He thought
eclnething ought 70 be done at once. a few who
MA that they had MADE careful study OF this Code
spoke quietly among themselves in favor OF it, but
aid nos take part in the argument. Finally 1t was
keeoived that the Committee ON the Amendments
~ sne Law should examine and consider the matter,
s4o report az special meetnQ neXk Tuesday might,