The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-06-21
Members of the Bar in
Session.
Continued from Page One.)

dlct1On, ana refinementS, anu peltef
suited to the genius Of an EhgAsh-
| speaking people.
Washington is = code State. 1t
adopted that system of procedure
shortly after New York in lS4S, led
the way, and it has never known any
other.
The provisions of it's Code are lden-
| teal in the main, with our own. Both
seem to be copied from the New Yofk
statute, the master piece OF DAVID
! Dudley Field, and a monument, more
enduring than brass, to that great
pioneer in legal reform.
An action is begun by issuing sum-
mons. But the attorney for the plain
tiff issues and signs it, the clerk OF
the court has nothing to do with 1T at
| this stage of the proceedings. The
summons, with a copy OF the com
plant, is then served upon the ad-
verse party by the sheriff, or by any
disinterested party of competent age.
Within the time limited for that pur-
pose. the defendant, in like manner
serves such pleading as ne desires,
upon the plaintiffs attorney. None OF
the papers in the case are MED, nor
is the case docketed, until one of the
parties desires some action taken
therein by the court If the case
stands on motion or demurrer ana
either party desires to have the mat
ter decided, he proceeds to DOCKET the
case with the clerk of the court ana
to notice it for hearing, he also MES
such of the original papers as are in
his possession. The adverse party,
thereupon is required to file such OF
the original papers as he mas ana
the matter is then, in due course,
heard and decided by the court. The
same course is pursued where an is
sue of fact arises upon the pleadings.
This system in practice works well,
and is in great favor with both bench
and bar. One Of it's advantages is,
that q suit can be brought and set
tied, without publicity, no one being
aware that the defendant has been
sued except the parties Immediately
interested, and SO that injury TO the
credit of a business man, which often
arises from the very fact OF his having
been sued, regardless of the merits of
the controversy, is avoided. AS the
only office of the summons is give no.
tice of the action, no valid reason sug-
gests itself why such notice, in the
form of a summons, may not be gwen
as we'll and effectually, to all intents
and purposes. by the attorney, as by
the clerk. 1t is true that the method
requires the service of copies OF all
papers on the adverse party, but In
these days of typewrters, when mani
folding is done so easily and so cheap
Iv the service of copies works on
hardship, and it tends to prevent sur
prise. misunderstanding and delays
Though there is but one form of ac-
ton in Washington State, yet the line
of demarcation between actions at
law and suits in equity is preserved
tG this extent; causes of equitable cog
nizance are tried by the judge, sitting
as q chancellor, without the interVen
| ton of a jury, except as he may, al
his election, eliminate issues and sub
NIT them to a jury lor the enllghten-
ment of his conscience.
Actions at law are tried as with us
before a judge and a jury of twelve
men, upon the issues arising on the
pleadings. "'''3' ta'
No issues are eliminated. however
in the form of distinct questions OF
fact, to be answered by the jury, as
their verdict.
The judge charges the jury gener-
ally upon the whole case, explaining
to them the law concerning the pivotal
| points of the case, and the jury are
| thus permitted to exercise their statu-
tory privilege and to find a general
verdict, that is to find generally, fol
the plaintiff assessing his recovery al
so much or generally for the defend
| ant.
The provisions of the Washington
| statute under which the jury are ac-
corded and exercise this right, are
| identical with our own. 1t defines
verdicts. Gas does our) as follows: "A
general verdict is that by which the
| jury pronounces generally upon all OF
| any of the issues, either in favor OF
! the plaintiff or the defendant. II
| provides, as does ours: I'm every ac-
| ton for the recovery of money only
| or specific real property, the jury may
| in their discretion, render general on
| special verdict" and further, in al
cases the court may instruct them, Il
| they render q general verdict, to hno
upon particular questions of fact to DC
| stated in writing"
Bearing in mind these provisions o.
the statute, the Washington practice
| appears to conform to the require
! mentS of the Code, and our own, &c
| disregard them. Under our practice
| all verdicts would seem to be special
! as defined by the Code. that is they
find the facts leaving the judgment
| to the court" and it would appear
that jury, under our Interpretation OF
| the statute, are deprived of their un-
uOuDlcU IlSHl W llllNl III W 1911 NAe''7ho-
es of cases, a general verdict, that is
as defined by the Code, one by which
the jury pronounce generally upon
all or any of the issues either in favor
of the plaintiff or defendant
The jury may in Washington, render
a majority verdict in all civil actions
If ten of the jury agree. their finding
is taken and recorded as the verdict
This innovation works well. Hung
iuries are less frequent and sinister
attempts to tamper with Juries are
| discouraged. When a unanimous YER
dict is required the jury "hXer' neeo
corrupt only one man. Under TINS
system he must corrupt three, and
the difficulty and danger OF the at
tempt are greatly increased.
1t often becomes the painful duty
Of some of us, to sue some railroad
or other corporation for damages, OF
may be, some insurance on policy
or some other cause of acton. IL OF
ten happens that such corporation is
a foreign one, with it's prlnclpal Of
fee in New York or perhaps III New
Jersey. 1t is probable that tnere are
certain material facts Wlthln the
knowledge of some of the oIllcerS OF
the company about which plalntllt, ma
turally desires to be informed ana fol
/ the aScertainment of the truth OF the