The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-02-13

fled in the casa the instruction
given by the Court. the instructions
asked by the parties, the bill Of
exceptions, but the transcript shall only
contain such record entries as are in the
order books. This bill is not without prece
dents. That is the law in the State of Ohio
in regard TO the appeals to the Appellate
Courts, and ar informed il is the Law in
the State of Pennsylvania. / believe this
Law should be favored ~ every lawyer in
this House. 1t has the Endorsement of the
bar OF Mars hall County and / can see no ar
gumeRt gsinst this bill
Mr.. BROWNING: / hope that this bill
Will not pass It is important to lawyers that
papers In case should remain in the Cur.
cult Court where the trial is had. The
original papers ought not 20 Be taken from
the hles OF the Court. IL you wanted TO get
any information concerning q cass you
would have TO come here u the city OF H.
dian spolis, and il would cost Giants more
than any other way. IL would be very
great additional expense to litegants.
Mr.. NOOK: l AN opposed TO this bill,
bat not exactly for the same reasons that
were given nv the gentleman from Monroe
(MT. Browning This oil is q very impor-
tsnt bill, 1t makes a radical change IN the
practice. The present practice has existed
since 1907, and 10 make this change would
have a greater effect on the practice than
qulre change IN the rules OF the Supreme
Court. And how are We to determine just
what papers should be sent up?
The only reason given by the gentleman is
inst u would make litigation cheaper. Now I
man - not able 10 pay the cnsi OF a tran
script be had better not 60 TO the Supreme
Court. The present practice has become set
tied, and am not in favor of changing IL.
Mr.. ENGLE: think there are many OBJ
jectonable features to the bill. Ii has been
nv experience that large majority OF cases
that are appealed from the lower court to
the court OF last re- ort are taken up for time
anyway. ! think before this bill becomes a
law it should be considered we'll.
Mr.. HARRELL: | am inclined to look
a. this bill with elaboration and cousldera-
tion. think 1t would be very dangerous
measure Tor this one reason, as it has been
stated by some member. AS il now stands
case appealed TO the Supreme Court We
have record Of the papers in the court be
low and one in the Supreme Court. Sap
pose the court below only had the papers
and they got lost, that would be the end of
the case. think II would be a dangerous
practice, and for that reason think the DILL
ought not to pass
Mr.. KELLISON: There is not one man
upon this floor that has giveE a good srgu-
meDt against the passage of this bill-not
one single valid or substantial reason The
question of losing the papers is easlS
answered. Section .6l5 OF the Statutes pro
vides that where the parties reqairs it the
clerk shall keep complete record OF all the
proceedings In the case. Now, this question
Of losing the papers is absolutely a bug-a.
boo. There IS nothing Ia 10.
say 1t is very important ID the people of the
State of Indiana that they can obtain JUS.
lice according to the spirit and letter OF the
constitution-fsiriy- without prejudice, and
speedily, without delay. Now, If it will be
40 injury IN Htigants. why should 1t not
CESS? And / have shown there is none.
believe it would save litigants Of the State
100000 in the first year after ii has been
accepted
The bill failed to pass or yeas %, nays So
The House then adjourned.