Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-02-03
REFORMING THE LAW.
Col. Geo. n. smiths Efforts With
Law students.

OhmlNU LA w
Col. Geo. n. Smiths Efforts With
Law students.
Last week Col. Geo. ii. Smith gave
two lectures before the law students of
the city. Press of regular news matter
prevented the HERALD giving the atten-
ton to the subject it deserved. On
Tuesday night the topic discussed was
Law and Equity. A few OF the points
made were these:
Law is not creature of legislation,
but q development of Jurisdiction.
The Epglieh law in the main was de-
veloped in practical administration of
Justice by four courts existing from an
early period until abolished by the late
iudicature act, and which were known as
the Court of Kings Bench, the Court of
Common Pleas, the Court of Exchequer
and the Court of Chancery. Of these
the first three were vested with substan-
TALLY the same jurisdiction and known
as the Courts of Law; the last, the juris-
diction of which differed materially
both in its origin and nature from that of
the others, was called the Court of
Equity. The English law is thus COM
posed of two distinct and independent
systems of jurisprudence developed re-
spectively by the courts of law and the
courts of equity, and known as law and
equity. To understand the nature of
this development an account of the
origin and growth of these two
jurisdictions is necessary. In Saxon
times Justice was administered by
the county and other local
courts, but these courts and the
Saxon civil law, though continued by
sufferance for while after the Conquest,
soon became obsolete, and hence may
be left out of account in considering the
development of our law. Upon the Con-
quest, all jurisdiction was vested in the
King, and exercised by him either in
person with or without the advice of his
counsel or by special delegation to
subordinate judges. of whom the prin-
cipal were the judges in eyre.
From the first much OF the business was
transacted before the King himself in the
aula or curia regis or Kings Court,
the justices in eyre, became the ordinary
tribunals for the transaction of all
judicial business. The court, in the lat
ter part of the reign of the Conquero-,
consisted of the King himself, the
Grand Justitiary, the Chancellor and the
other great officers of the palace, with
whom were associated certain persons
called justices, to the number of five or
six. Originally it's functions were to ad
wise the King as tn affairs of state and
matters of legislation as we'll as judicial
proceedings, out in the reign of Henry
Ill. the judicial business of the court
was finally separated from the legislat-
i've, and the Kings Court or cura regis
became the ordinary tribunal for the ad-
ministration of justice in all questions
arising between subjects.
This court was finally divided into
three courts in the following order,
namely: The Court of Exchequer, the
Court of Common Pleas and the Court of
Kings Bench. OF these the Court of
Common Pleas was the regular court for
the transaction of civil business, and had
exclusive, or almost exclusive, jurisdic-
tion of civil cases between man and man !;
but the other courts finally acquired sub
stantially concurrent jurisdiction of
civil cases. Each court consisted of one
chief and three puisne judges; those of
the Exchequer, however, being called
Barons.
The Jurisdiction of these courts was
finally settled in the reign of Edward l,
until they were abolished by the Judca-
ture act of 1873. In the beginning of the
Norman rule the Jurisdiction of the King
consisted merely in the power and duty
to administer justice and right, and was
altogether unrestricted by any positive
regulations. This jurisdiction was
never formally parted with by the King,
and was in fact exercised either by him
self or by judges to whom jurisdiction
was delegated by him. The principal
instrument by which jurisdiction was
delegated was the Kings Writ, or, as it
was called, the Original Writ, which
was necessary in each particular case to
confer Jurisdiction. The function of de.
termining whether these writs should be
issued devolved upon the Chancellor and
his clerks, but the common law courts
ultimately assumed jurisdiction to de-
termine upon the validity of the writ as
we'll as upon the sufficiency of the de-
tense in each case. Hence on the one
hand the jurisdiction of the common
law courts was limited by that of the
Chancellor, and on the other the Chan
cellor's jurisdiction was limited by that
of the common law courts.
10 the end the jurisdiction OF the Chan.
cellor to issue new writs ceased, or
rather ceased to be exercised except in
cases where precedents could be found
in the Register, and where such prece-
dents could be found, writs were issued
as of course, and the function of the
Chancellor, originally judicial, became
merely ministerial. The jurisdiction OF
the common law courts thus became a
general jurisdiction of all cases for which
precedents of original writs could be
found in the Register. 1t thus became
inadequate to tie administration of JUS
tice.
The above was followed by discus
sion of jurisdiction" History has been
transacted by the lecturer for incidents to
enrich his treatment of the subject, and
authors on law were quoted under the
several subdivisions of this topic. Passing
from this he took up the question of
equity in the present day. He said ir
part:
An opinion prevails that of late years
this has ceased to be true description
of equity, and that its nature has in fac
become essentially changed. Equity,
it is said, has nothing to do with "the