Los Angeles daily herald., 1886-01-10

A Heferm Needed.
There is a growing indisposition on
the part OF the people TO resort to our
courts for the redress Of grievances,
on account OF the excessive costs and
yexatious delays and intricacies OF
legal proceedings. When the Codes
were adopted in 1872, it was hoped
and believed that proceedings in
courts would be simplifed, abbreyi-
ated and rendered less expensive
thereby, but this has not proved to be
the case. AT least, II would be hard
TO see how the matter could be worse
in the above respects than 1t is now.
II is true that the new Constitution
had one good effect in getting nd OF
superfiuous court, the County
Court r--and thus simplifying the
administration Of Justice to the extent
that IL reduced the number OF trial
tribunals to two instead OF three. At
present there are only two trial courts
the Justices Courts and Superior
Courts-with the appellate tribunal,
the Supreme Court Of the State, which
has also original jurisdiction to issue
writs OF mandamus, habeas corpus
and certain other writs. Yet although
the number Of trial courts mas been
reduced one-third by the Constitution,
and the law is supposed to be crystal
lized into mass Of fixed rules in the
Codes, easy TO be understood, the
labyrinths OF litigation have not been
straightened out or rendered safe and
clear TO pass through. OF course IN
these remarks We do not refer to the
inferior criminal courts in incorpor-
ated cities, nor TO the Senate sitting
as Court OF Impeachment, when we
say there are but two trial courts
and we advert, especially, to trials OF
civil causes. When a man files his
complaint in q civil action he has
natural and Just right to suppose that
il, under the law, he is entitled to u
judgment orselief in the case, he will
in q reasonable period Of time, and at
a reasonable cost, obtain that relief or
Judgment; or at least have the matter
adjudicated In the innocence and
simplicity OF his heart he will expect
that the opposite party will file his
answer to the complaint, that the case
will be tried, and TINT then il will be
ende'l. Such a party is always in a
hurry. He wants to have his case
tried, and be rid OF it. He receives
the first rude shock tending TO unde-
ceive him and to acquaint him with
the wearing task upon which he has
entered, when he is met at the outset
by torrent OF demurrers, motions,
answers, counter-claims, cross-com-
plants, and the thousand and one
procrastinating and expensive pro-
ceedings which every shrewd attorney
NO we'll knows how to use. But he is
informed that this is inevitable in
every lawsuit and that he must COM
pose his soul in patience. And it is
probably true that under any other
system equal, ii not greater, annoy
ances OF similar nature would exist,
The laws delays" were proverbial
long before the time OF the purported
reference to them in the soliloquy OF
the melancholy Dane. But when the
anxious litigant, after innumerable
delays and incessant and heavy calls
upon his pockets for costs and fees.
(for the disbursement OF which he is
reassuringly told he will obtain a
judgment against the defendant when
the case is tried), finally succeeds in
having his case heard, and
obtains a Judgment in his
favor, and while feeling happy at the
end OF his troubles, even II it has cost
him dearly, and another such vic
tory would ruin him-while such is
the case, and he is served with notice
Of motion, and proposed statement on
motion for, new trial, as big as
book, with voluminous bill OF ex-
ceptions, sufficient to make any man
but lawyer dizzy, and is told that
the case is only begun-that the new
trial must first be disposed OF, if
granted that the whole thing must
be gone all over again, and II refused
that the case will then, through an
interminable maze of puzzling pro-
ceedings, which cannot be enumerat-
ed here, be appealed to the Supreme
Court, which body after a long delay
will probably first hear il in depart
ment, " and then after another long
interval in which the case will APP
pear TO he dead and forgotten, on
motion will most likely give it an
other hearing in bank, when, If the
trial Judge below made even one
error which the Supreme Court at
such hearing happens to consider
material, out OF perhaps II hundred
oh-hand rulings Mt the trial, the de-
cision OF the lower court will be re-
versed, and the ease will be re-
manded for new trial, and the liti-
giant will be just where he started
with his case--we say when the liti-
giant is told all this he naturally be-
gins to feel little discouraged and
faint in his endeavors, And this is
the course OF litigation in California.
Cases are often tried and retired in
the lower courts, and appealed and
reappealed to the Supreme Court,
until the parties are either dead or
bankrupt This is no fancy sketch.
By delays and appeals rich litigant,
no matter how honest and able the
Judges may be, in almost every case
can wear out aud ultimately defeat
his poorer antagonist, regardless OF
the merits OF his side Of the case,
simply by prolonging and piling up
the costs OF litigation.
The right of appeal, not through
any fault OF Judges or courts, but
through the inherent defects in the
system, has become an engine OF OPP
preston in many instances, and
should be regulated by proper
amendment to our Constitution. But
this is only one fault in connection
with our existing system of legal
procedure. Here in Los Angeles
litigants are still compelled to pay to
the county the experimental fees
Of the Ellis salary bill, which