The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-02-04

] arbitration who would otherwise APP
peal to the courts.
Some Unusual Methods.
! The law provides certain protec
! ton to accused persons. and often
these safeguards produce anomalous
conditions. For instance, a highway
rohher attempts to hold up a man
| He is stabbed by the intended VIC
| tim, who escapes. An officer, In
| arresting tho highwayman. discovers
the stab wound. 1t Is the best link
/ In the chain OF evidence. and would
make the conviction OF the would
/ be robber certain. yet under legal
| procedure IL Is not admissible as
| evidence. II the highwayman had
been successful in his attempted
| holdup. he would have been search
ed from head to foot and this evil
dence brought out against him.
A jury may resort to any sort of
tactics to decide case. even TO the
/ Tipping of a coin or by drawing
straws, and the court is powerless
to invade the jury room with its
4 questions. But If peeping baiiifr
or an eavesdropping clerk chances
1 10 see or hear something his tale
! is competent evidence against the
| Jury.
If q man owes another $40. 600. and
/ finally is able to prevail upon his
creditor to scale down the ebliga-
I ton to $4,000. the creditor. or his
heirs, after having accepted the
$4,000. can reconsider the matter
and enter suit for the remainder of
the debt, on the ground that there
was no consideration" for the re-
| mission of the balance unpaid. But
/ II the debtor bethinks himself to
add rusty nall, a red rose. fish
hook or some other minute thing,
he complies with the law OF con
sideration' and the debt is satisfied
In full without recourse.
| In some States II one man owes
another, pays the debt and then loses
his receipt. he can be forced to pay
the money again: and II he should
afterward find his lost receipt he can
not compel the creditor to return the
money enormously collected the sec
ond time. The ground upon which
the courts hold that he cannot re-
cover his money. though he holds
two receipts, is that there must be
an end to litigation. Thus the credi-
tor may, with the full knowledge of
the COURT retain money that ne I'M
justly, collected through the machin-
cry of that same court
Laws Often Contradictory.
Laws are often so contradictory In
| their terms that II Is impossible to OBJ
serve them all Sometimes one sec
ton of statute prohibits by indirec-
ton the very thing another section
| specifically requires A school law III
one State provides that no school
! shall be kept open less than gipeH
number of days in each year. Yet
! in the next paragraph a limit of tax
! alton Is given which is too low to per-
NIT the schools to be kept open that
long.
Even the greatest lawyers have
! sometimes been unable comply
with the very laws they assisted In
making. Samuel J. Tiiden. candidate
| for President of the United States,
and one OF the foremost lawyers of
| his time. wrote his will In such
way that 1t failed to pass muster when
| brought into court. A mere techni-
cality stood in the way of the fulfil-
ment of his dying desire. Many other
| instances of lawyers who made dis
NAL failure of writing their own wills
| could be cited.
The delays of the saw are no less
| proverbial than the defeats which JUS
! tice sustains through technicalities.
| An Indiana calf case Is an instance
/ OF now litigation may survive even
| the cause at issue. Two farmers be-
| cauR involved In a dispute over the
ownership OF a calf. They could not
settle their differences between them
selves, SO they took their troubles to
! court. The case went from one stage
/ to another. Meanwhile the calf grew
/ to maturity and died. But still the
/ case went on. and the costs became
/ the issue instead of the calf itself.
! Years afterward. when the court OF
| last resort was reached. II was found
| that one Of the parties to the suit
had died of old age before seeing
| tho end of the litigation.
| Nearly every court in the land f.
| clogged with business. Especially is
this true of the courts OF appeal 1t
Is believed that over one-thtrd of the
/ cases that are carried from trial
| courts to those of appeal are reversed.
and in nearly every case the reversal
/ is on techntcalities. This reversal of
/ trial courts has become so serious in
many cases manifestly thwarting the
! ends of simple justice, that many OF
! the higher courts have decided that
| hereafter. unless II can be shown that
substantial injustice has been done ny
/ the verdict of the trial court. its
! findings will not be set aside.