The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1891-12-20
TO RELIEVE THE COURT.
Views of n well-Known Lawyer on the
Judicial Situation.

-
Judicial Situation.
10 lie EDITOR OF The TIMEs:-The
necessity of an additional court of gem
eral jurisdiction, or of additional terms
of some such court in existence already,
for our city is imperative to a degree
that would Justify an infringement
upon the fundamental law OF the land
If any necessity might warrant such
policy. l take occasion here to say that
the efficient and rapid dispatch Of bust
ness in our Hastings Court can not, in
my opinion, BIO surpassed by the efforts
of any court with the Same due regard
to the rights of parties litigant; yet con-
fessedly there is denial of justice, be-
cause the work of the court is too much
for the strength of any man and without
frightening of days the time is too
limited if the strength of the Judge were
adequate. The necessity of another
court would then seem to be absolute.
Conceding this proposition, which
has nperhaps too much influenced the
consideration of this question, can the
legislature afford relief by the institu-
ton OF another court of record? think
not. The institution of two corporation
courts of record in any city of the State
(under section %, article V, Of constitu-
tion) Of less than 80, 600 inhabitant is,
would be, it would seem upon all princi-
Piles Of judicial construction, violation
of section IA, article V. of tho constitu-
ton, and the supreme court of the State
must so hold. am equally of the opin-
ion that no legal initiatory steps to that
end can be taken in anticipation of such
population. The rule of construction
is that general provisions are controlled
by special in the same instrument and
expressio unius est exelsio alterius.
Section 30, article V, is general
ture; section IA, article vi, is special
provision, and limits the general au-
thority of section % in preceding ar.
ticle. Section IA, article vi, author
ICES an additional court in cities of 30
600 Inhabitants, but does not say that
such court may not DO instituted in
cities of 10000 Inhabitants; yet if such
are permissible the language of this
section is meaningless except as to the
mandatory clause requiring Court of
Hastings in cities Of 5000, and If an
additional court may be instituted in
cities of less than 10000 then there is
no reason why Court of Hastings may
not, if the legislature deems it neces-
airy, be appointed for towns of four, two
or one thousand inhabitants. The reas-
oning is the same,
This view, however, doubtless has its
supporters, and If correct many towns
will soon have corporation court that
have been waiting and struggling for a
population of 5000, deeming that an
Indispensable requirement. If any
meaning is to be given to tho language
employed in section ID, article vi in
reference to an additional court, it
seems difficult to see by what course of
reasoning an authority to institute such
court in cities of 10000 inhabitants can
be made to appear as meaning that in
reality 10000 would do, though 10000
is expressed.
1 think any reasoning resulting in
such conclusion is unsafe. The neces-
sity for such additional court is such
that | most earnestly desire that such
means be employed as to secure by the
quickest method the proper relief. but
this, think, will be found in amend
mont of the constitution or by an in
crease Of the number of circuit court
terms for our city, and about which
there seems no constitutional difficulty.
PHIL. LoCKETT.
Roanoke, Va, Dec. 10, 1891