The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-07-02


prepare hi pl,a or demurrer at his
l.isu,e, aod therefore there would
likely be no occa.ion 10 ask the
Court to amend. As a rule, the
parties ara qniie as well prepared
for trisl the frs; term as ever
aftsrward, end usually bett rprara ed.
II the defendant irtfrooses plea or
demurrer, eviden ly fiei fer decay, re
should b. taxed not only vita the
cosls of the term, but Il WITH rea-
sonable attorneys fee 70 be psid the
plaintiffs attorney. v hen e files a
pea or demurrer let 3 copy b served
upon the plsi.titf's at rne If upon
examination the la ter conside the
demurrer wei taken. he w,ll ordin a i
ly still have time t. amend hjs declars-
ton. Let ,oDy If the plea5iD9s SIS
each is filed be issued upon the op o.
site, or HE 1T" IN y, end, say ten days
given file succe V, pleading until o
issue isreached This procedure won d
bling cause TO tr al oIClnsrily four
months sooner Than tt present, AID
the cass would b. much better pre-
pared.
THE PLEADIEGs
shou' d be prepsr d in vacation, net in
term time, and with view 10 the ear
lest possible termination of the issue
between the par s, aud any attempt
t. secure delay by fir volous pleadines
should be pun she'd by the imposition
of costs and u taxed attorneys fee.
2. There should be a NIT 10 the
prosecution OF cuts upon the psuper's
oath. The policy Of al owing su t. to
be brought at all upon toe pl intiff's
takirg the oath prescribed for poor
persons is, 10 sly tie leas question.
able. L. is diff ult 10 zee why the
S ate is any more bound to fu'nieh
poor man tie luxury of a lawful.
than a null t, pillow his I'm. Indeed,
the latter W uld be Likely to be much
moe Sc vicsable to him AID to the
State also u an the former. 1t is be-
lievcd IN 1t rarely h poems that a
person having good eau @ If action
is yet so ut eny fri ndle-s that he is
unable to give DO d Ia secure costs.
The pr, s mt syttrm of al 1iag people
to prescott suit no costs Tha eve =
to themselv g dir ct inceaive to
the institrti n OF frivolous SUI Is,
whose only re ult is to crafty malice
by hRIrassing enemies, cau.iag officers
OF the cou t t. work for nothing and
consuming g eat deal Of the valu-
able time of ours with suits that
never ought to have been brought,
and which never would have baen
brought if tie p amt ifs had ben
compelled to assume some risks ia
bringing. Some restrict ons upon the
institution OF sucn suits should be
provided.
JUDGE ANDREWS,
in his paper slready referred 10, sug'
ges that "The cit rney proposing 10
bring suit in forma pauperis should
be required 10 &c tiiy up n honor that
he has investigated the Gaze aud be.
lieves that the pla n if has a good
cause of action and will be aba to
maintain his suit Your COMMITTEES
greatly doubt' the efficacy OF the
remedy here proposed, but has no bet
ter one to suggest But, IN any case
if the plain If pro ectuing his suit
upon the pauuer's oath is cast in the
count below, he should not be allowed
10 prosecute an appeal to the supreme
Court unless he givts a b nd to secure
the costs Of such appeal, or unless
the pr, siding judge shall Ger iiy thai
some question hes arisen in the case
which, in lis opinion, the appellant
should b. permitted to carry the case
to the Supreme Court without giving
bond.
8. TIE preparation of CAUSES in thu
inferior courts would be hsstened i
with each pleading filed, tie practic
compelled the alto ney ii Jog to serve
a copy upon thu t,rney Of the OPP
posite patty. This cour4e would give
each attorney an Office copy OF the
whole fila, render il uun c5ssary t
take files from tie off, Of the clerk
greatly diminish the dagger of loss O
files, and in case OF loss render it eas J
TO supply papers.
4. An immense number OF suit
would never be lis ituted If the plaiu
tiff, in addition 10 the bond given Il
secure cost, was required to pay fol
the work done by the officers of thu
court for him as the suit progresses
There is no 60 d reason why tue off
GERS of the court should wait for year
for pay for the work done on his be
half; and If he had to pay the money
directly out Of his pockets as hi
PROCESS Issues he would bs in
reflective state of mind. Unde
our present system he gives blu
little thought 10 the liabilities he i
assuming, for pay day is away in tn
flu u,e. The result is that costs accu
mulate until the orig nal subject of tn
controversy is lost sight If, and tn,
principal cause of contention is, VIII
of the two par,ies shall be saddle
with the costs OF the suit. This ough
not so to be. The plaintiff Will hav
to pay bis costs ia tte end, unless b
recover judgment, and the none,
s,n be made on the judgment, and, j
he makes the money on nis judgment
he Receivers the cots he hvs paid
John Randolph sid he had found tn
philosophers stone, and 1t was "ps.
az you CO." and in nothing would tn
wisdom of the proverD be made MOI
manifest than in the practice Of lii
giants, es ecially the plaintiff, in pay
ing the costs Of q suit as they accrue
S. There SHOULD be RS ricton il
the matter of appeals to the Suprem,
Court. The dockets of that court err
numbered with c3uses, large portion
OF which involve insigni6cant pecu
mary amounts, and ara carried W
from the inferior courts. pr ncipally {,
indulge The PISS ons OF lit gants.
would be r bttt r, in most cases, TO
the party defeate in the inferio
court ii he abiJed the result in tina
court, even If he succeeds in ravera
ing the Judgment in the Appellat
Court. These cases form a large pro
portion Of the GAUGES in the Supreme
Court.
They not infequent'y require quit,
as much of the time Of tue Court tC
hear and determine as causes involv
ing large money smouns and they
overload the doCkets of the court anC
delay the hearing OF causes of import
| lance.
We are OF the opinion that the Stat
practice in this re pect should bt
made to correspond in degree will