The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-07-13
THE BAR ASSOCIATION.
OPENING or THE ASsUAL SESSION.
Address of Hon. John Randolph Tucker.
Paper on master and serv~"'
by Mr. X. L. Parrish.

Cu;,e of Richmond. chairman of the exc
cptive committee. The business of tho morn
ing was the reading of reports from the secre-
tasy and treasurer of the Association MI
Jackson Guy
NOV IouS RANDOLPH fuckers ADDRESS.
Thu address Of the President Hon. j. Ran
dolph Tucker was listened 20 Win in1ei Co nj
and enthusiasm He was INTRODUCED oy -;
III. Mcclure in few graceful remaLhks' c AMI
bis subject was. Inc REFORM ia WIG
Procedure of the state.
lie prefaced by saying that he was ia =. co ',,
dition 10 treat the contested views WIZ ~"
dor He did not think the existing sys'eA
an intoerable evil nor the proposed roioii :" %
Danaces We should not Dc 100 'enaoI. . % w.
rsst methods nor too ready TO accept Low
pa1' ,w;ad rlans We can not make any
svs,em which will be easy Tor ignorance W
sS,~~rahend The science OF pleading 70 tbe
sc;snce of Abatement" IL views the quhii1ioo
~ nerspicacity 10 perceive. ana perspicaoisS "
express. in logical manner any que''io" '''
oe Tndos Allen said Mr.. John X. Cooke never
,ssded 10 argue his case after no stated IL:
s~rhe simple narrative OF truth IL the ioEio =.
nature and is the highest art Oh the IoienS'0
pleader.' .r;so 90 IN the
need OF codiicatlOn, II Is clearly heeoou " -
AR. Tucker then gave an historic sKeicH "a
;ud;oial procedure-holdiDg that logicai anu
nrecise statement by each party OF his cIalin
and defense was essential 70 inteligen' 'o"-
troyersy and intelligent adjudication
He showed how In early Roman hts'oly,
no bad baen attempted on very narrow ana
tschnioal methods which were more hDerai
sfter Iustipian-that this bore strong analogy
10 the common law procedure-whlch ,as1
was no doubt copied from the Roman. p M,
Thicker then showed that the frieter NJ noIno
mt into these forms OF procedure his o"h
ideas OF equity and that law an9 ,o',yts
under the same jurisdiction ana same courts.
On tho contrary. the speaker showed that
tba chancellor under the English monarchy,
was authorized by the common law courts
and therefore law and equity were KEPT sepa-
rate and even hostile.
Mr.. Tucker then proceeded TO snow 'hat
under the common law pleading 1t came to
nass that the pleadings of the parties became
too general 10 be clear. and too vague 10 %
understood by either party-that the psT''Ss
fought in the dark.
Reform" in 1928 the expression OF the re-
form views of Bentham. Mills and others
and pointed out how the evils or the system
lad been arraigned by the great debnter aud
now these we're sought TO be relieved by the
Hilary rules of the courts in 1884, which was
the first step for practical reform.
then
movement in New York-foliowed partially
in Massachusetts, 1851. and by other states
later and amended by New York from time
10 time.
Mr.. Tucker said he had been anxious to see
what had been done in I'm gland IN the act OF
1873 and the results. and he proceeded quite
fully 10 explain the reform there and TO cite
cases illustrating the operations of II. Il IS
impossible to give any intelligent detail OF
this part of the address, az il wac too technl-
cal for your reporter to give an account oil.
This. however, no said. had been done. Law
and equity had not been fused, but were
united so as in tho same suit between same
narties 10 administer both. He insisted this
had been already done in Virginia by making
the same nudge Judge of common law and
n chancellor. Why keep up n separation IN
form when none existed in factf Why not
we'd parties who were IN perfect unison!
This reform Mr.. Tucker said he favored.
Then the English act of 1878 made each
party fully. fairly and clearly state his case.
Forms were subordinate TO substances--all
vagueness and ceneralities Of ayerment were
done away with and the truth and the whole
truth was required to be stated, and no less.
Mr. Tucker stated cases which seemed to IL
lustrate these points of late date in England.
lie showed that in Virginia. to conform her
system to the English, 1t would require no or
ganic. only functional, changes, and they
would be easy.
He admitted his conclusions were contrary
to the usual drift OF his opinions when were
conservative, not radical. But he was salts
fed the sy stem would be best. could work
no Inconvenience and was in accord with the
truly progressive ideas in Jurisprudence.
He closed 10y adverting TO the fact that
Virginia had always been progressive In her
past history. had taken advanced steps at
the Revolution on entails primogeniture and
religious freedom had done especially what
10 ha dome
uniting law and equity; that her great legal
men had been the foremost in the Union
and by their greatness indicated the old
civilization of Virginia from the criticism
that it was low type of society. He urged
the bar of Virginia TO uphold its ancient re-
nown and push to the front in the progressive
march of Jurisprudence.
The address was obviously prepared with
great care was replete with valuable infor-
nation and illustrations and was received
with deafening applause.
Mr.. fuckers address was carefully pre-
pared. we'll thought out and WAS received with
marked approval and apparently general
assent. Those who disagreed upon the point
at issue pronounced it the strongest argument
that they had heard on the subject.
His attitude occasioned some surprise. but
no disapproval II is considered one OF the
most instructive and influential that has ever
been delivered before the Association.
Even Dg Session.
The evening session, at o'clock, was
opened by paper read by Mr.. Robert H.
Parrish of Coyington, Va, entitled Master
and Servant"
MASTER AND SERVANT.
Mr.. Parrish handled his subject. as WEI
expected by his colleagues and those outsid.
the profession who knew his attainments
with skill and intelligence. holding his audi
ance to the end in closest interest and atten
ton. The Law of Master and Servant" a
given by the gifted speaker. defined the du
ties Of the master. all of which he must per
form with ordinary care"
MIR. Parrish discussed the risks assumed by
Servants. among which are the risks OF injury
from the negligence of other servants
He discussed fully the "Fellow-Servan
Doctrine" including the Vice Principa
Limitation" the Superior Servant IAmita
ton" and the Different Department IAmi
tstionn
The speaker showed that the doctrine tha
forbids a servant to recover damages from hi.
master for an injury inflicted by the negli
gence OF another servant IN the same serylc,
Is not limited or affected by the rank or grad,
of service of the negligent servant. nor b,
the question whether the negligent ser
want and the injured servant are il
the same department OF service o.
not: but that the only true and logical rul,
IL that master is not liable TO his servant 10,
an INJURY received by hun through the neoli
gence OF another servant in the same service
anless the negligent servant at the time OF IN,
accident is engaged in the performance of ,
duty which the master is bound TO perforu
himself. and which he cannot so delegate I,