The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1881-06-16
THE orRcU UIT yuDaRs.
How They Have Run the GAUNTLET OF tho
Snprcine Court Judicial Statistics Calcu.
lated t0 Doceiyc,


fiow They Have Run tho Gauntlet OF ts.e
Snpro,ne Court Judicial Statistics Calou
lated t0 Deceive.
tFrom tho Abbevllle Press and Banner,
The following article was sent 10 us
last week but too late for pnblicofio
MO pGesulne it has lost nothing in tho
Keeping. We agree with our CORE
spondent In SAYING that there is much
to be taken into consideration besides
! the bare figures given in the table,
For instance, the report fails to show
how many cases each of the Judges
tried, and whose rulings were not ap-
pcalcd from.
!he highest standard Of merit in q
Judge Is evidenced by tl.e fewest num-
berof appeals. Tie Judge who makes
ms decision so clear that the ATTORNEYS
ON both sides arc satisfied, is the best
Judge. This table would show that
Judge KcrShaw is the clearcst-hcaded
judge Oh the bench-and not Judge
Fraser Judge Wallace as some mirht
crroneously hold. Each Of these latter
Judges failed to mako their decisions
sufficiently clear in twelve cases, while
Judge Kcrshaw rendered his decisions
IN such manner that there were ONLY
five appeals from his court. The next
best record is that Of Judge Thomson's
and Judge Mackey whose de-
cisions there were only six appeals in
each. Judge Thomson stands second
among the judges while Judge Nlackey
takes the third position. Judge Press
icy stands fourth, Judge Hudson, fifth;
Judge Aldrich, sixth; Judge Fraser,
seventh; Judge Wallace, eighth. Com
PARSONS are always odious. but since
comparisons have been made, we think
the public should not be misled, but
That each OF the judges should take his
proper place. Judge Mackcv, so far
from holding the lowest place Oh the
Ilst, stands third, and since the death
Of Judge Thomson he stands second
only to Judge Kershaw who heads the
list.
If the figures give honor to some
Judges over others, it also correspond
ihgly reflects upon the ability Of some
lawyers while giving credit to others.
The following is the article:
"Ihc Spartanburg corrcsDondcnt of
the NetcS and CJuyter communicated
TO our contemporary the following
tabular statement Of the number Of
circuit decisions affirmed and reversed
ny the Supreme Court as embraced in
Volume l3, South Carolina REPORTS, |
recently issued:
Aldrich affirmed, 4 reversed.
Fraser 10 affirmed, reversed.
hudson affirmed. reversed.
Kcrsllaw 2 affirmed, 3 reversed.
Mackcy l affirmed, ) reversed.
PRESLEY Z affirmed, 1 reversed.
Thomson affirmed, 3 REVERSED,
Wallace affirmed, / re;' ,,tn ~ ~" "
:, "ihs =, toregoi;,gg Usual, y, ,crSed.
is sg 90 'rca .nc p3G it liable is very interest
ti'rn: tS S:tS'the maic: as Information, but il
mE;;; 80, mistake to suppose that it
,1hu"PShcs n criterion by which the |
10 .Grits Of the respective Judges can be |
Tested. AS statistics of judicial ability |
it is altogether (allaciouS AMI mislcad- !
ing. A moments reflection will satisfy !
even the n-prOtcsSional public that |
the above figures furnish absolutely no !
test. Take, for example, the appeals
from Judge Eraser and from judge |
kcrshaw. There arc - appeals in
the former casc-l0 affirmed and , re- !
verscd. There arc in the latter case 5 |
npprals-2 atismcd,3 3 reversed Does !
that mean that Judge Fraser is likely |.
to be right in his decisions ten times |
out Of every twelve? Or that Judge ,
kershaw is likely to be wrong three
times out Of every five? TO put the
question is to show its nbsurdity. III
the figures mean anything they mean
that the lawyers were very much mis-
taken in appealing SO often from Judge |
Frnscr's decisions; and tnat Of the |
small number ofappcals from Judge !
kersllaw's decisions nearly half should |
not have been taken. So far from be-
ing standard by which the judges |
can be weighed or mcasurcd, these
figures show rather the ovcr-fondncss
Of the legal profession to take up ap-
pcalS to the Supreme Court. Otthc sew
cnly-thrcc appeals reported the in 18th
volume, t!vc-ci3nths were dismissed
and only thrcc-cighths sustained, that
is TO say that five out Of every eight
cases which were taken up on appeal
it would have been better to leave at
home and abide 10y the decision of the
circuit judge. This would he better
for the lawyers, better for their clients,
and much better for the Supreme
Court. whose hands are too full Of
work."