The record-union., 1891-04-11
MAY TAKE THEIR TIME.
Justices of the Peace Cannot Be Hur-
ried in Deciding Cases.
Judge Catlfn Was of That Opinion,
and Finds That the Supreme
Court is Also.

Judge Catlin rendered decision in
Department One of the Superior Court
yesterday that has an important bearing
on cases in Justices Courts, as it deter
mines the right of Justice to hold case
under advisement for considerable
length of time before rendering judg-
ment. The issue was raised by Constable
Martin on an appeal from judgment in
Justice Devine's court.
The case was one growing out of the
seizure by the officer of certain property
under an attachment, which he sold. An
action was brought against him for the
wrongful diversion of q portion of the
property, which, it was claimed, was ex-
empt from execution. The case was
heard and taken under advisement by
Justice Devine. Much time and labor
was required by the court to thoroughly
investigate the case, and to digest Sthe
arguments, which had been submitted
on briefs, and in his appeal from the
judgment the Constable raised the point
that the court had not complied with the
law, claiming that the latter required that
judgment should be announced at the
close of the trial. In deciding this point
Judge Catlin said:
after the trial in the Justices Court
the case was held, presumably under adj
ViSement, from the Sth of May until the
18th of September, when judgment was
rendered, and the question is, whether
the Justice lost jurisdiction of the case.
Section S92 of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure provides that, in Justices Courts,
when the trial is by the court, judgment
must be entered at the close of the trial.
Section S9l provides that, when the trial
is by jury, the judgment must be entered
at once, in conformity with the verdict.
after a verdict there IS obviously
no reason why, judgment accord
ing TO the verdict should not be inn
mediately entered, but upon a trial
by the court, after the close of the
testimony and the conclusion of the argu-
ments of counsel, it may be well contend
ed that the trial is not yet closed. Con-
SideratiOn of the testimony and of the
arguments is often quite necessary, and
reasonable time for such consideration
when the case requires it's doubtless
within the meaning of the statute. Con-
sideratiOn by the Justice is or may be
factor in the trial, and until this consider
alton brings result it may be said that
the trial is not closed"
The court then INDUCED in little drv
humor, remarking: "This element of
consideration In trial by the court is
perhaps not always part of the trial, for
1t may happen that the Justice knows
more about the facts than the witnesses
and more Of the law than the attorneys,
in which case he could pronounce iudg-
ment as eXpeditiously as he could enter
one upon a verdict"
The court then quotes from a decision
OF the Supreme Court in the recent case
of John Heinlen VS.. P G. Phillips. in
volving the proper construction to be
placed upon Section S92 of the code already
referred to. In that case Judgment had
been rendered by the Justices Court six
weeks after the case was submitted, and
it was claimed by the appellant that the
judgment, by reason of such delay, was
void.
In deciding against the appellants
claim to that effect the Supreme Court
held that the evident intention of the
Legislature was not to require an i'm
mediate judgment on the submission of
case in the Justices Court, or it would
have said so.
Judge Catlin thereupon caused an order
to be entered affirming the judgment of
the Justices Court.