Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1909-07-29

precedent for remedy to enforc8
his right. Now, an ordinary man, not
a lawyer, will ask himself first Have
a legal rights If he has, the law ought
to find him remedy So far as cofi-
Germs practice and procedure, all that
is really essential is that the defend
ant should have notice of the claim
made against him. and he should have
a day in court and a fair hearing, and
that the Judge should s;ae that record
is made up showing the exact point
tried out and determined 50 that the
point may be settled once and for all.
The amendment puts it in the power
of the court and legislature to secure
greater simplicity and avoid technical
tiles, but it does not alter any legal
rights nor empower the court or legis
lature to do so. It merely relates %
questions of the method of procedure
Paragraph 8 contains similar pro
vision as to the practice and procedure
in the chancery division. Probably
there is less need of reform here. az:
the court of chancery has never
thrown a man out of court. if he had d
good case, merely because he had fail
ed to use certain magical words. He
did not for example, lose his case be-
cause he asked for an injunction when
he was not entitled to it. If he asked
for general relief and proved himself
entitled to do something, he got what
he was entitled to. The trouble here
has been that often a man would have
a good case, but would be thrown out
of court because of peculiar system
the result of the historical develop
ment of chancery procedure out Of the
Roman law and the development OF
what is called procedure at law out
of the English common law. The
main difference between the courts OF
chancery and the courts of law has
been that the former tried cases with
out jury and said to man you must
do so and SO or refrain from doing SO
and so, while the latter tried cases
with jury and never said to man
he must do or not do a particular
thing, but only that he must pay dam
ages If he failed in his duty. Now.
it often happens that in order to do
complete justice the court of cham
Gerry ought to make man pay jam
ages or a court of law ought to tell him
exactly what he should do or not do
To accomplish this at present requires
two suits, one in chancery, one ar
law. Then. again, it sometimes hap
pens that man makes mistake and
goes into chancery when he ought TO
proceed in a court of law 1t is these
difficulties which seem to have led TO
the adoption of paragraph 5 of section
5. This paragraph authorizes the SUI
preme court to provide by rule for the
transfer of cause or issue (which
mean the same thing from the law
division to the chancery division, or
from the chancery division to the law
division, or from the county court to
either division, and for the giving of
complete legal and equitable relief in
any cause in the court or division
where it may be pending The object.
is to have the whole matter finally set
tied in one suit.
Paragraphs 4 and 6 of section 5 hard
ly seem to need explanation. One re-
quires justice of the supreme court
to hold courts in the several counties
That is done now The other author
ICES the legislature to alter the powers
and jurisdiction conferred on any
court since 1874. This date is fixed
because our present constitution.
which was adopted in that year, pre-
serves intact the then existing juris-
diction. But for this provision 1t
might be said that the legislature could
not hereafter change the powers which
the coucts now have in 1909 In short.
this paragraph seems intended to pre-
serve all the present rights of the leg
islature to change the power of the
courts.
Stated briefly, the object of section
5 seems to be to simplify and expe-
dite legal proceedings.