The morning call., 1893-11-04
A PERT PETITION.
Supreme Court Asserts Its
Dignity.
REFORM ARDENTLY DESIRED.
Complaint of Half Considered and
Badly Digested Decisions by
OVerworked JuriSts.
REFORM ARDENTLY DESIRED

1.-The petition for rehearng being dis
respectful to the court it is ordered that
the same be stricken from the flies of the
court"
Such was the order made by the Su-
preme Court yesterday iu the case OF the
Story & Isham Commercial Company VS..
II. l.. Story ct al The Superior Court of
San Diego County rendered judgment in
favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court
recently reversed this judgment and
ordered that judgment should be entered
against the plaintiff. Attorneys Works
and Works of San Diego filed petition
for a rehearing and it was this petition
which the court ordered stricken from the
files.
In their petition Messrs. Works and
Works say: "We have had four important
cases decided by this court within the last
thirty days. They were all submitted 10
the court in bank before the full bench
ana all bat one of them orally argued.
One involved the enforcement of con-
tract running for twenty years and calling
for the payment of over S2,000.00 An
other involved the title to tract of land
worth $4,000. In the case at hand the
amount in controversy was over 500. 900,
and we have a judgment ordered by this
court against US of S74 450. The last case
mentioned involved a similar amount.
''In none of these cases have more than
four justices participated III the decision,
nor has the Chief Justice, the head Of the
court, participated in any of them. In this
case TWO OF the Justices before W ON the
case went in department appear not to
have taken part in the decision, and the
opinion is written by the other Justice of
that department. 1t may be that an opiD-
ion written by one Justice and concnrred
in by three others, without the other three
Justices being called upon to act, is tech
nical compliance with the law which au-
thorizes decision by majority OF the
court
1T may be that a party against whom
such a decision is rendered, and who has
thus been deprived of the judgment of
nearly half of the court, cannot demand a
rehearing as a matter of right. But we do
maintain, with all respect to the court,
and particularly 10 the learned justices
who wrote and cOucurred in this opinion,
that whatever may have been the eZigen-
cies which brought II about, no matter
how much the court may have been pressed
for time, such determination of case is
not according TO the spirit OF the law, and
that upon mere suggestion OF the facts a
rehearing should be granted. even II like
decision appeared To be inevitable when
acted upon by the full court.
'Fhs case was heard by the Chief JUS
tce and all the Justices. Why was it sub
mtted to them all if not TO call for their
Judgment upon it? 1t is fair to presume
that f all had acted those whose Judgment
upon it has not been called for might not
have agreed with those who decided It..
ard that upon consultation the views of
the others might have been changed.
1--WE fully sympa hiZe with the court in
its overw0rked condition. The labor of
complying with the law that limits the
time of the court in rendering its decisions
is bothersone and unjust But litigant
who believes in the justice of his cause
will never be satisfied with a decision
against him by part OF the court only,
because the other members of the court
had not time to consider it.
1.-The remedy for the overburdened con-
Gition of the calendar does not, we re-
spectfully submit, lie in hasty and ILL
digested decisions by part of the court,
but in the decision of fewer and we'll
considered cases.
THE opinion in this case bears evil
dence of having been prepared without
that care and deliberati0n that are charc-
terlstic of the learned Justice who wrote
it. The facts upon which the decision
rests are not correctly stated in some
most material respects, ana the really con-
trOverted questions of law, carefully pre-
etuLtu III Tie UlltlS dUu dL Inc oral dTHu-
meDts, are not decided at all, and there is
no evidence on the face of the opinion that
the authorities cited and relied upon by
the patty we represent received the con-
slderation they deserve. And as a result
we respectfully submit that the case was
wrong ully decided and that we are en-
titled to a rehearing on the merits"
Unusual interest attaches TO this petition
when it is considered that the senior mem
ber of the firn of Works & Works, John
d. Works. was formerly member of the
Supreme Court. He was elected in 1888, at
the same time as Chief Justice Beatty.
He drew one of the long terms, and in the
ordinary course of events would still be q
member of the highest judicial tribunal in
the State, but about two years ago he re-
signed and resumed the practice of his
profession in San Diego. One reason
given for his leaving the bench was that
the labors of the position were too onerous.
The eX-Justice has always been known as
an untiriug worker. and it was asserted
that during his judicial term he wrote near
ly three -fourths Gf the imoortant decisions
rendered by the court. Under the circum-
stances, therefore, Attorney Works may
justly be looked upon as competent to
criticise his former associates upon the