The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-05-18
DECISION A SWEEPING ONE.
Made by Judge Norwood as to Meth
DDS of Pleading in Courts.

DDS of Pleading in Courts.
The trial of the case Of Wilder & Co.
against the Ocean Steamship Company. in
the City Court yesterday morning, devel-
oped a decision from Judge Norwood, that,
If upheld by the Supreme Court will eff
feet sweeping and material change in the
method of pleading pursued by the bar of
the state.
The case is an old one that has already
been once tried and carried to the Su-
preme Court. The plaintiffs claimed that
by reason of the negligent manner in
which the defendant company had handled
a shipment of cotton, made by them from
this port to the port of New York. for
subsequent transportation TO England, the
cotton had been damaged to the extent
OF Sl,969.92. For this they asked that
judgment be given.
Al The former trial judgment for the
plalntlffs for the amount of their claim
was obtained and an appeal was taken by
the defendant to the Supreme Court. Here
the decision of the lower court was re-
Versed, on the ground that the Judge had
erred in ruling out evidence to show that
at the time of the shipment and the al
legged injury Messrs. H. VI. Conner and r.
Somers Hayes We're receivers of the Ocean
not Ihe corporation in its existing condi-
lion, We're the proper parties defendant
Yesterday Mr.. Walter G. Charlton,
who appeared for the plaintiffs, moved to
strike the defendants answer, on the
ground that it did not accord, in the man
ner OF its construction, with the pleading
law OF the state. That law declares that
what is known in legal parlance as 1.-The
plea of the general ISSUE" shall no longer
suitice. The general issue is the general
denial by the defendant in a few words
of the allegations of his Indebtedness or
other fault charged in the petition.
1t has generally been conceded that to
avoid the prohibition of the plea of the
general issue it sufticed for the defendant
to say that he denied the allegations made
in the respective paragraphs of the petit
ton, naming them all and each. That has
been believed by the legal fraternity to
comply fully and sdequa ely with the law
and there are numberless answers now in
court in which 1t is maze use Of and spe-
cine denials left fer introduction by
amendment or the evidence of witnesses.
The point was argued at length by MIR.
Charlton and Mr.. t. NJ. Cunningham. Jr,
the latter appearing for the defendant.
Mr. Cunningham declared that under the
law his answer was all that it should be
and all that was required The statute
merely required a specific denial of each
that denial had been made in the enc that
he filed
Judge Norwood decided in favor of the
motion made by Mr.. Charlton to strike
the answer, and this was done. mo-
ton to amend, that was made by Mr.
Cunningham, was ruled out by the court,
on the ground that as his answer had
been stricken, there was nothing left TO
amend. Without any defense remaining,
after the plea had been stricken, it le-
quired the jury but a few minutes to re-
turn a verdict for the plaintiffs for the
full amount of their claim. An appeal
will, of course, be taken promptly TO the
Supreme Court.
A number Of the more prominent mem
bers of the bar do not agree with the cor
rectness of Judge Norwoods decision.
They say that the method of pleading
pursued in the past, is an ample compl-
ance with the provisions of the law, and
give it as their opinion that the decisi1 IN
of Judge Norwood will be reversed when
the case is carried to the higher court.
On the other hand, If the opinion is
sustained, it will throw out of court the
answers of defendants in a multitude of
cases in ell the courts of the state, ana
leave them without the privilege of max
ing their defense. It's effect will be far
reaching and possibly very unfortunate.