The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-01
quests are made to Harvard university
in Massachusetts.
Personalities IN TRIALS.


recently made decision on a matter
OF practice. which is entitled 10 the
highest commentator. The public is
not always interested in the details If
an action. but ii Ia very much Interested
In knowing and feeling satisfied that
their decisions are based upon the
merits or upon good sound principles.
rather than upon a strained construc-
ton of laws in which the mandatory
and directory provisions are not always
very clearly defined.
Speaking generally, when an appeai IS
taken to the supreme court. il is re-
CURED that the appellants shall cause
the clerk OF the superior court To pre-
pare and certify a transcript OF the rec
ord In the case to be sent TO the supren~
court In order that it may be informeo
of all the necessary facts in the case
In the case in question the appellants
had failed to have the transcript pre-
pared within the statutory time. The
adverse party sought to have the appeal
dismissed on that ground. This the APP
rellate court refused to do. saying that
IAN inspection OF the respondents brief
and the matters presented BY the record
shows that no injury resulted to him.
nor has the court been embarrassed in
considering the case" Here a distinc-
ton was made between this particular
case and another which went up on ap-
peal shortly before in which there had
been an entire failure to send up the
record. of course. in that case. the
court had not the papers before il upon
which IL could render an intelligent
opinion. and the appeal was properly
dismissed
There has been some criticism of
courts for seeming To go too far in the
direction of making things jurisdictional
which had not the effect OF bringing
them within that Interpretation Of the
law which regards those things essen
tial only which affect the interests Of
the opposite party or embarrass the
court In determining the issues.
1t seems such a very fair question to
ask. why a case should be thrown out
of court merely because of an incidental
omission of seine detail. desirable
enough In itself In furtherance of the
orderly conduct of business. but the
omission of which works no injury to
the other side nor interferes with the
courts opportunity for considering the
case on its merits.
Another case. occurring in Pennsyl-
vania. has subjected the supreme court
Of that state to mild criticism by the
Philadelphia Ledger, which might be
condemning the judiciary. The court
In question has set aside the sentence Of
n murderer because the court below neg
lected the formality of asking him
whether he had anything to say before
sentence was imposed We have the
same requirement in our criminal pro-
cedure. It is required that when the
defendant appears for judgment. he
must be informed by the court Of the
verdict of the jury. and asked whether
he have any legal cause to show why
Judgment should not be pronounced
against him"
II may seem hardly surposahle as the
Philadelphia Ledger puts 1t. that any
thing the accused could have said, IN
addition To the pleas Of his counsel.
could have had any effect: still the law
allows the accused that privilege, and
it is his right To insist upon 1t. 1t is
mistake to suppose. however. as the
Ledger evidently does. that the decision
of the supreme court that the sentence
be set aside. frees the prisoner or even
entails a new trial The only effect II
the decision is 10 remand the case back
10 The lower court with directions 10
render judgment according TO law
II has been held that this address 10
the prisoner. or allocutus. as 1t is called.
need only be observed where the pun
iShmont 10 he imposed Is for n capital
felony but there can be no douf that
It becomes one Of the rights OF the az
cused. IN any trial. where the statutes
provide generally for It's observance.
THE PLAIN AMERICAN WAY.