The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-07
JUDICIAL, REFORM,

cases averted While these twoSsystems
were in vogue in our State, the
decisions of our own Supreme Court
received, as they merited, the highest
respect of the bench and bar throughout the
country and in England. Now even the laity
have lost their regard for the court and are
clamorous for reform. The two systems al
luded to were expensive, and the rules of
pleading were regarded as technical litigants
often suffering from some slip or mistake of
counsel. To remedy this new constitution
was created, and code of practice, the de-
clared object of which was to simplify" the
rules of procedure by blending the two systems
into one, was adopted. We have. now had
thirty years of experience under this code, and
if one should place kaleidoscope to his eye
and turn it for half an hour, and then under
take to recollect the different forms he had
witnessed, he may be able to form some just
conception of the interpretations given to it
by the Supreme Court, and of its present hue.
| If the rules of practice were technical be-
fore, they are a hundred-fold more so now.
Almost every day society and private suitors
are made to suffer in order to give some judge
the serene satisfaction Of showing great pessi-
mistic optical powers bysdiscovering some new
and hitherto unheard-of technical reason why
cases should not be disposed of on their merits.
The average supreme judge seems to dread
nothing so much as to be brought to bay and
made to write an opinion on the merits of
presented case 1t would be amusing were
the matter not so serious, to study the differ
ent ways by which such an event is lodged.
This is doubtless fun for the boys, but it is
death to the frogs.
We have had OCCASION recently, to say
great deal about the decisions of the court in
criminal cases, but its record in civil cases is
no better. A glance over the abstracts of
opinions, printed in our columns when the
court is in session, will show that very large
per cent. of the cases go off on. some technical
question not at all touching the merits of the
controversy, even though character or for
tune may be involved. Formerly, if the
clerk in making up the record omitted to at
tach his SEAL the case was eagerly dismissed
by the court without notice to any person,
and all applications to reinstate denied. This
has been corrected by rule, but before it
was done many itigants suffered unjustly.
If the names of the parties do not correctly
appear in the assignment of errors the case is
unceremoniously thrown out of court If the
the bill of exceptions concludes with this
was ali the testimony given in the cause" in
stead of ''this was all the evidence given in
the cause" the court will not hear the appeal,
even though it is morally certain, and is not
denied OF questioned by opposing counsel that
all of the evidence is in the record and before
the court. Many men who contribute largely
to the expense of keeping up the court have
been made to suffer greatly because their
counsel, in the hurry of business have chosen
some inapt word no more affecting the merits
of the case than would the weight of fly in
the sinking of continent We could multi
ply instances OIL GnlS hlilOSC l1ueuulte-
ly, but it is not necessary. The most acute
lawyers cannot keep up with the discoveries
and inventions of the court upon trivial
questions of practice lawyer who
would persist in raising such technical ques-
tons of practice in the federal courts are
allowed every day to control in the decisions
of the State Supreme Court, would be dis
countenanced if not disbarred.
The fault is largely due to the system
adopted for the disposition of causes, for the
individual members of both the court and
commission, with perhaps one or two excep-
lions, are men of good ability, with an average
degree of legal attainments But although
the court and commission is composed of ten
Judges the decision in each case is practically
that of one man. The records are paGceled
out among the Judges, twenty five going to
each Judge at distribution. Each judge then,
in his own room and alone, examines the rec
ord allotted to him, and the argument
of counsel writes his opinion and,
at the consultation, reads it to the
other Judges who either approve or reject
without ever having seen the record OF heard
the arguments In this way single judge
often practically disposes of case in one or
two hours, to which, perhaps. an equally able
judge below may have given weeks, and able