New-York tribune., 1884-02-25

some unnecessary part Of f. think decidedly wTonS f6c
benefit to be gained go
Nathaniel C. Moak, the law writer, Of Albany
SAYS:
The common law (. more expansive than any statutes
can he made n can be so construed by cOdrts as TO bet
adapt # to the circumstance OF cases ana times
admire the principle Of hexibily OF the common law
which enables II 10 be adapted the ever varying cOhd
tons OF human society and 1t Is IN tnat Iespoe, %
tiouaby, altogether superior to any wrltteD couo'
Judge Charles j. Nehrbas, of the City Court
says:
opposed to Code as IT requires comprsssi9Stn
and arrangement OF our common law wnicn - Pd IN
able aud not desirable The Field CODE may DC gVou ~
many respects No code can meet the emergencies Oh
our common Law practice
u. w. NOyes of Dansvile, says:
II would unsettle the Ofthe state for half century
and cost the state and tsants millions OF money 10 no
good purpose.
Ex-senator Homer A. Nelson says;
Codlcation as proposed would introduce so much
change and uncertainty in the law that person now
living would long enough to see anything near
settlement of the questions growing ont of IT, The law Is
no satisfactory TO the people, although fault Is some
times found 10 The manner OF Its administration
civil code for a new state Government Is sometimes
necessity such not the present want OF necessity O
Hew-Yofk
Judge w. II. Peck, of Genesee County, writes
Codncstion wholly impracticable in my Judgment
Nathan u. Petty District Attorney of Suffolk
County, in opposing the cOdihcatiOn of the common
law and the Field Code says;
Both would tend TO uncertainty and confusion.
Litigation as consequence would MURPHY. u fe prhcoe
to obscure that little light by codncaon OF the flciu
Civil Code
Surrogate Daniel g. Rollins says:
7 am opposed to any codifcaton OF our common laws
The Field Code Is good in Its way dare say out neither
that any code satisfy the demands of our common
arise in practice. There Ia need OF fexibily IN THIS
respect whereas code would allow nothing % OUTSIDE
the strict Interpretation OF the law as lald uOWh'
Cornelius A. Runkle says:
IL would fifty find ont what Fields Code
meant IL impossible to make code chat viii cover
every case, but he statute arbitrary and not Ike the
law that hexibe and be made TO apply 10
any new condition OF affairs.
Judge George G.. Reynolds, of the City Court of
Brooklyn, says
think it is impossible to make nm accurate and
hanstiyc codication of the common law.
District-Attomey Clarence l.. Smith, Of Tomp-
klns County, says:
1t is utterly impossible to accomplish anything that
would be beneficial to the masses OF the profession te
way proposed.
Judge saac 5. Signor, of Orleans County, writes:
In myopinon the first Is mpracticabe. have not had
time TO thoroughly examine tn" Field Code but 50 ar az
Improvement On the law as 1t now stands.
Corporation Counsel Henry Smith, of Albany,
says:
that impossible to provide for them by fixed statute
rules. Tne codes and vanity have ed us to the worst
judicial system in the world
Professor H. f. Sickels Reporter OF the Court of
Appeals, writes as his reasons for opposing the
EIcld Codes
Because think the task hc has undertaken mpractic
able The work Itself u the best evidence OF this, al
though done by one o the best lawyers or the age, to
whom II has been labor Of love, II Is full Of i'm pertec
tions and defects
edward NJ. Sculder says:
The Field Code is inadequate inaccurate, in violation
OF practical coddcaton rcpcte with legal rusins not
necessary 10 bc enacted pregnant with opportunities
uisu6cr preaton and relies corrections upon amend
bred from It's own existence. Ii has been vetoed
twice by Governors who possessed keenness enough to
appreciate its detects.
Judge Charles H. Trax, of the Superior Court
says:
think hat more eyibty is required IN administering
have not examined the Field Code | would favor the
codlcaton Of PARTS OF the common law such a9 pro-
would be highly undesirable.
Martin l. Townsend District Attorney of Renssa-
lacT County, writes:
It's proposition to substitute mans definitions Of
principles for the wisdom OF ages Mr. Field Is a wise
but not wise "a all men who have gone before
him.
Judge George VI. Van Hoescn, of the Court Of
Common Pleas, says:
opposed TO a code because the system OF
mon laws is too broad to be embraced In code. Mr..
Fields work Is excellent in its way but it embraces
small part OF 0 common laws Mr. Field Is an admirable
lawyer aud the reason for that IL that be knows much
more law than is contained in his CODE His work il ad-
mirabe, may say a remcmbTancer, and is full of
suggestions but does not far enough indeed
elimination, aud calling for variation Of judgment not
provided for in the common law In order to meet such
cases the latitude OF Old must be allowed. am
in OF leaving the whole matter it now stands.
Supreme Court Justice p. G. yann, of Syracuse,
says that he is opposed to cOdihcation-
Because in a progressive State the common law cannot
be codiued 10 adequately provide for the future.
George w. Weigant. County Judge of ROckland
County in opposing cOdliicaton says:
II viii not answer for our day. believe it unwise ard
However carefully prepared win not lead to Hood
OF litigation to cOnstrue its provisions.
Thomas Young, County Judge of Suffolk County,
writes:
To codify the civil law IA mpracticabe and would pro-
duce confusion. litigation and Injustice.
Chief Judge of the Superior Court John Sedg-
wich said:
Ioppo.e the Field Code because It is very small part
OF what proposes to be- 1t is very imperfect and rs
filled with trisms The common law cannot be cCdihed.
Judge Miles Beach, of the Court of Common Pleas,
said
l say no decidedly to both questions To codify the
common would hinder the administration OF justice,
increase litigatlOn and be injurious in every way.
Justice John II. Brady, of the Supreme Court,
said:
lam doubtful whether any good would result from the
COdliiCatlOn or tho common law nave not read the
lleld Code.
Justice Charles Donohue, Of the Supreme Court,
said:
think that This IS matter which should be left for the
Legislature to decide. Judges and lawyers must work
under whatever code the Legislature gives them. aud
advisable to leave the matter with the Legs
ative body The real trouble there viii be- however
"A cOlificatiOn l. determined upOn-that nobody
tell at any time what the code will he six months after
wards As In the OF our statutes the Legislature Is
apt TO make changes constantly so that 1t would appear
that peancncy in the code would hardly be looked for
As for myself entered law office at twelve years OF
such practice is cOdifcd, L dare say that have
disposition favorable To code which most common
aw lawyers would not feel
----------
ASSAULIING HIS DAUGHTERS.
AlOnzo Davis, age forty eight, of No. 279