Los Angeles herald., 1890-05-22
ABOUT TOWN.
Meeting of the State Bar
Association.
The Judiciary of the State to be
Reformed.
A Filibustering Scheme from San
Diego.
What a Noble Band of Five Men Proposed
to Do-Other Items Gathered
Yesterday.

A meeting of the members of the
State Bar Association and of the Los
Angeles Bar Association was held in de-
partment of the superior court yester-
day afternoon for the purpose of discuss
ing reform in the arrangement of the
courts of the state. Among those pres
ent were Judge T. B. Stoney, of San
Francisco, president of the State Bar
Association; Judge FernaId, of Santa
Barbara; Judge A. M. Stephens, Judge
Campbell, Judge Anderson, Judge Nc
Kinley, Col. G. H. Smith, Judge
Haynes, Judge Fitzgerald, and Messrs
Dennis, Lowenthal, Burdette, York and
Shankland.
The meeting was called to order by
Judge Stephens, who moved that Judge
Stoney be selected as chairman. The
motion was carried.
Judge Stoney said that he was glad
to have an opportunity to talk to the
attorneys of Los Angeles, for the reason
that an attempt was about to be made
to have the united bar of the state
insist upon a reform of the
judicial system, which seemed to be
absolutely necessary. In that part of
the state from which he came the feel
ing was that the condition of things was
intolerable; the delays of the law and
the uncertainty of the decisions de-
manded that the profession should do
something to relieve the people of an
onerous and inefficient judicial burden.
He had been told that the delay in OBJ
tanning final decisions in the Los An
geles and Sacramento districts was not
so great as in San Francisco, where at
one time the supreme court had been
two and half years behind. The
supreme court had gained, however,
and now was only about one and a half
years behind. This meant that there
were 1000 undecided cases before the
court.
He drew attention to the fact that
owing to the overpress of business the
supreme court had refused to review
the facts of the cases, holding that ap-
peals could be taken only on law points.
The supreme court also denied the
attorneys the privilege of argument be-
fore the court, and even if an attorney
should argue case. it was not consoling
to him to know that at least 100 other
cases would be argued before the Judges
would consider their cases, by which
time the judges would have forgotten
the points madeain the oral argument.
He thought the supreme court had
entirely too much to do. Last year it
decided 8OS cases, and the opinions were
filed in every case. These were the work
of seven judges, and he thought it was
more than could have been done prop
erly. One judge alone wrote 140 opin-
ions, and to have done this he must
have digested the transcripts, which was
more, he thought, than could be prop
erly done.
There must be some remedy for this
state of affairs, and he thought that the
members of the bar should devise the
means. There had been great many
ideas advanced as to how the remedy
was to be effected The evil is that the
appellate court is inadequate, and the
constitution must be amended so as to
make the courts sufficient to carry on
the business, or the number of appeals
must be reduced. The latter was con-
sidered unpopular, and it had been sug-
gested that an intermediate court be es-
tablished, allowing the supreme court to
be the court of last resort. The state
would be divided into three districts
Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Fran
cisco-and an appellate court, consisting
of three judges, could sit in each dis
trict. Then appeals should be made to
lie only in certain cases from the appel
late court to the supreme court.
Judge Haynes agreed with Judge
Stoney and said there should be reform.
He thought the supreme court should be
unit, without departments or commits
sioners. There should be intermediate
courts, as suggested. All cases should
be appealable to the intermediate courts
except those involving constitutional
questions, which should go to the su-
preme court. No criminal cases of less
importance than felony, and no civil
cases involving less than $4,000 should
be appealable to the supreme court. In
this way the number of cases reaching
the supreme court would be reduced.
He thought the supreme court should
still consist OF seven judges.
Judge Dunnigan suggested the Illinois
system of courts, which allows no ap-
peal to the supreme court in criminal
cases where life is not at issue, nor civil
cases where under So, 900 is at stake.
Judge Stephens embodied the sugges-
tions of Judge Stoney in a motion.
Mr.. Shankland offered as substitute
a resolution to the effect that the sug-
gestions of Judge Stoney be approved,
and that the local bar association APP
point committee of three to consider
the various suggestions as to what cases
should be appealable to each court.
The substitute was carried and the
MEETING adiOurned