St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1889-06-29
st. 1audrg 9entutrat
The Special Term of Court.

Mr.. EDITOR last issue of the
st. Landry DEMOCRAT, contained the
following editorial paragraph to-wit:
"a special jury term of the District Court,
for the trial of civil cases has been in session at
the Court house since the 10th inst. Up to
Tuesday last, but one case had been decided,
when the jury We're discharged. Since that
time the Court has been engaged i'll the hear
ing Of cases, where a jury trial was not de-
Tnanded.
The business done at this term OF Court, is
not commensurate with the expense and in
convenience incurred, and proves that mid
summer term, is q luxury that we can we'll af-
ford to dispense with
1t gives rise, think, to injnrions in
ferences as to the propriety of my call
ing the special June term of Court just
closed, and to prevent further misap-
prehension desire that the facts should
be made known.
They are briefly as follows: There
were pending for trial before tho Court
seven jury civil cases, some of which
have been on the docket for several
years. At the last regular jury term,
not one OF them was or could be tried
and disposed of, and it was the same at
the term before that in the Fall of last
year. In fact it has been found impos-
sIble to dispose of the civil jury cases at
the regular jury terms Of Court which
Wv AOlu wv lSC cIGIt 9SIl ttS IT,
quired by law, and for the simple reason
that the whole of the time, allotted to
the trial OF jury cases, is required and
consumed in the trial of criminal cases.
Heretofore the only opportunity liti-
gants had for the trial of civil Jury cases
was during the first week Of each regu-
lar jury term while the Grand Jury was
in session, and there being only two
such terms q year, the consequence was
there were but two weeks during any
year devoted to the trial of such eases.
When small case takes five days to be
tried (Which happened at the recent
special term) it can be readily seen that
these two weeks are totally inadequate
to dispose of the pending cases. So
well is that state Of things known to the
bar and shrewd litigants, that it has be-
come % common practice to pray for q
jury trial, merely for purposes of delay,
and delay is invariably secured in this
way.
Inc seven pending cases involved
some $50, 600 90 and the Attorney s main
ly Interested, Messrs. Baillio, Perrault
and Frazee, at the last session, request
ed me to call special term for the pur-
pose Of trying them.
L. IL. LOWS another Attorney equally
interested, did not join in the request,
ana believe was opposed to it's being
called. They could not be tried with
out jury and hence jury was order
ed. The term was called for the trial
OF all civil business, preference being
given to jury cases. No blame what
ever is to be attached to the Attorneys
for urging me to call thesterm, and do /
not wish it to be so understood. |, am
alone responsible, and am to be blamed |
1t blame there be for ordering f}a !
special term.
AS to the results, that is another mat
ter, totally distinct from the duty of a |
Judge in such emergencies which is, to |
give every facility, within the law, to
lltigants to dispose of their business in
Court. No Judge can try cases
without the consent of the ATTORNEYS.
at least on one side. All he can do ia to
give them an opportunity to do so and
it, they, and not the Judge, must take
whatever blame there is. Herein lies
the reason why but one jury case was
tried at the special term. By mutual
consent OF the Attorneys on both sides,
all the jury cases were continued at
their request, except the one tried, and
q recused case, of which the Judge adj
hoe was c. W. DuRoy ESQ.,, who, saw
bit to quasll the jury and refuse trial.
had no. control over the recuse
Judge nor the Attorneys and conId not
force trial in either case. {
A few words as to the cost Of the {
Jury, and will have said all | care to s
say upon the subject &
By an inspection of the stub book in !
the Clerks Office, which is open to ex- {
by any and all pers ons, it |
will be seen that the actual cost of the q
ury for the special term, does not ex- i
iced S332.20. Deducting from this say b
$4,000 collected from the Jurors for their a
DOLL tax and We have, as the net cost
s292.20 or shy, in round numbers allow d
ng for errors of calculation, $500. 90 in t
tead OF six or seven hundred one hears f
% much about. i:
The foregoing facts were easily ac- q
esslble to any one who desired to know d
hem, and if published, in connection
With any comments you may have de- G.
lred to make, think, would have t;
dded materially to proper under II
landing of the matter. In closing per- IL
lit me to say, Mr.. Editor, that what Il
ver may have been your intention in NJ
the above paragraph (and [ [
ave no reason to believe that You have ia
vii intentions towards me) it is fairly pl
, be inferred, from the language en- "
l0yed, that have been regardless of in
le public interests in this matter. At ri
ast such is the inference I draw, in tn
with all who have expressed al
q opinion on the subject to me. and | W
ave written this communication for
lie purpose of giving fair minded peo- Ell
o through your journal the means of in
'rming their own judgments. ba
There were some twenty-five cases th
spOsed of during that term of court th
of the jury cases. re
e. r. LEWIS.
Judge 18th Dist. IA
th
r.