The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-08-20
THE LAWS DELAY.

THE Neps and Courier several days ago,
in reply to an article in the INTELLrGEN.
GER somo time back upon this subject,
says:
What the Ners and Courier said was that
jury case is seldom or never tried at the
| first term, and such Is the fact. One side
or the other always makes the affidavit,
and TO tho disappointment Of tho ready
..igant. And why? If the cause has
| already been at issue for three or four
months 1t Is the duty of the party to have
ready the depositions of his witnesses and
not to wait suPinely, because ne knows
that lie can evadc immediate trial by an
| affidavit that ho has exercised due dill
genco. Nothing that has been said in these
columns suggested the abolition Of appeals,
as the iNTELLIGENcER would hive it to bo
inferred: That the Supreme Court Is not
oyerworked mny be the case, but 1t is q
fact, nevertheless, that decisions are rarely
| are heard by that Court that an appeal Is
seldom decided in less than year from the
time of appeal below, and that the
supreme Court is practically mover nd
jonrned, in order that they may comply
with NC provision of law which requires
oil decisions to bo filed within sixty days
after adjournment. The question is not
what the Court desires or considers most
efficient. Tho best judgf its efficiency
In point OF results are tho lar, who have
to await and be guided by their decisions.
The troubles suggested by tho Mews
and Courier in this paragraph are little
overstatod. It is not our experience
here that o jury.nase Is seldom or never
tried at the first term of Court after 1t IL
instituted. On The contrary, we believe
majority of cases on docket number
one are tried at the first term of the
Court. unless the parties agree to con-
tinuance without summoning any wit.
nesses On either side. But even If a
hardship should sometimes be worked
by continuing case In which one of the
parties is ready for trial, that would not
work such injustice and wrong as chang.
ing the law so as to permit the use of
depoaitions would do, for every objection
able or lying witness would be examined
out of Court, and the jury would not
have the opportunity of testing the value
of testimony by the appearance, manner
and general demeanor of the witness.
The examination would either be In the
absence of the litigant upon the oppos.
ing aide, or the frequent examination of
witnesses could require his attendance
go often as to become much more injuri.
Gus 20 litigan!s than the present system.
In fact, We repeat that we think the
present law, ifeficiently executed, would
be ample to secure spsedy trials. I:
witnesses summoned, who do not attend,
were vigorously punished for contempt,
and litigants making tho affidavit of
due diligence were prosecuted for perjury,
where their affidavitH are not true, con.
tinuances would doubtless become less
frequent, and there would be less COM
plant about the laws delay from these
sources.
The Neacs and Courier does not think
the Judges Of the sspreme Court the
best authority on the question of the
work Of that Court, but we imagine these
Judges know better how to combine. ex.
pedition with safety in the transaction of
the peoples: business than tho members
Of the Bar would, because they zee the
difficulties In the present system and the
trouble about modifying them. Unless
the State is ready to provide for n double
Supreme Court, the present number Is
as large as is compatible with Efficiency.
The Neacs aud Courier Is correct when
it says: asa
That to abolish jury trials In all civil cases,
except those involving fraud, would be to
practically abolish It In all civil cases Is an
entire mistake on the part Of the INrHLLI.
GgsCER. Fraud In o ground for equity
jnrisaiotion where relief Is sought ftom
namely, to set aside deed or contract for
fraud, &c, but In cases involving debt
arising out of fraud. with o view TO o
remedy against the person, equity has no
jurisdiction whatsoever. For o debt
andulsny s9n.racssd the debtor may be
fraud has been passed upon by o jury, and
such c,Asrs arc exclusively Jury cases to be,
tried in Court Of law.
The old theory of jury from tho vicin.5
nge, namely, twelve Impartial men knowing
onr 6een oo,binr as Sae uoqp
matter OF fact, In large cities they neither
know nor care anything about either, and
In spalsely settled places the Influence of
kin and Ifsiendship makes short work Of
the theoretical impartiality. and one prejp.
HiceG or partinl, or Influenced man car
make OF no avail the opinion Of the other
eleven. The secret practice among jnries;
thenagelves, In order 20 saves time and
trouble, often is 10 ngree that tho verdict
saall ba determined by u majority or two-s
thirds vote. q i
.In Its former article tho :Ne.es a,.,ss
Cbarier advocated the abolition Of jury
trials;ia a,i civil cases, except cases jas
yoiyirg ffaad and In our reply NE sta:sa
ahe proposis.onsth sthat fraud q ! subject of
equity jnfisdiclio On Too broadly, as tho;
yNsps asa Gbarisr points ont. The reason.
ior tho oaissios WAS that We were writ
Ing of tho matter as s practical question,
and tha psSsoaai Sprocs dipg for fraud q
sorars thai sit did mot at the moment
occur to do. sThsrs has mover bosn spch'
8 case at shfa Bsir.. nor so fsr as Nst knoy,.
s sas ANY 80 onr neIgbboiipg Bars sincs
ths adopslsn ~ ths new Constitution