Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1911-12-15
THE ABSURDITIES
OF THE
COMMON LAW
CHAPTER II.-Continued.
From the Newberry Observer.

for Justice in common law Souit u'
less he by chance could buy writ
which would fit his case. The assort-
ment was limited to ten kinds, and
the rules were so inflexible that when
one man ran away with another's wite
the wronged husband could do MOTH
ing but prosecute him for trespass'
(Vernon's Case, decided 1870 AT
the present time, when one Is treated
most unjustly and suffers great loss
or injury, he can have no redress In
court of law unless he happens to have
a ground of action" (Damnum abs
que injuria). Cunning and unscrupu-
lous lawyers know this. When they
fleece an ignorant and credulous cli-
ent the client has no way to protect
himself If a lawyer-judge is on the
bench who has so often done the same
thing himself; for a judge Is natur-
ally disposed to uphold lawyer when
he is legitimately taking clients
money away from him.
At the present time the main thing
required Of a high-priced lawyer oy
his client is to win an unjust cause at
all hazards, and the most important
function of the big criminal lawyer
is to pervert justice at so much per
pervert, and it is so common that II
passes without comment for some
LAWYERS to practice their profession as
II the chief end Of the machinery OF
the courts is to enable law-breakers
to escape punishment and to safe
guard them in the enjoyment OF their
ill-gotten gains. The attorney generai
of the United States recently said that
conviction or acquittal often hinges
on the ability of the defendant to af-
ford lawyers to take advantage OF le-
gal technicalities." The intricacies OF
special pleading, the ancient methoos
of procedure of the courts, and the In
flexible technicalities and quiboles OF
the law enable unscrupulous lawyers
to prevent the enforcement of the
statute laws and to abort justice cas-
ier than anything else, in spite OF their
maxim "De minimis non curat lex
We now have Federal courts, state
courts, law courts, equity courts, ap-
pellate courts, criminal courts, pro-
hate courts. surrogate courts, orphans
courts, trial justice courts. superior
courts, supreme courts. county courts
district courts, circuit courts, ad-
miralty courts and others, and
If any decision is made by the
wrong court (Which frequently hap
pens) 1t is thrown out whether 1t Is
lust or not. In the Federal courts there
are declarations, petitions, pleas, an
swers. demurrers, replies. rejoinders'
surrejoinders. rebuttals, subrebuttals'
replications. bills Of complaint, bills
of revoir and supplemental bills, oliis
of review and bills in the nature OF
bills of review, bills de bene esse. bills
of discovery, bills of interpleader. bills
to construe DEGREES, bills to eventuate
DEGREES, bills to impeach DEGREES and
bills TO perpetuate testimony, etc., etc.
and woe to the plaintiff, defendant
petitioner, orator, oratrix, libellant or
other litigant who fails to get exactly
the legitimate thing into the proper
place at the required time, and thus
steps into one of the innumerable and
intolerable pitfalls and traps set by
the astute lawyers.
The lawyers have still another good
way to abort and pervert justice; for
no man now who testifies to facts
which tend to establish the guilt Of a
criminal on trial is safe from coarse
and brutal attacks by the hired attor-
ney of the criminal. He is held up be-
fore the court and jury as a perjurer
and a monster Of iniquity, and through
it all the judge mods and blinks COM
placently like an owl, never once exer-
cising his authority to protect the wit
ness. The lawyer knows the witness
is helpless and dares not resent any
of his insinuations; for were a witness
to attempt to do so the judge would
be instantly alert, the witness would be
severely reprimanded and would be
lucky if he were not fined or sent to
Jail for contempt This habit criminal
lawyers have of browbeating and in
sulting witnesses under the protection
of the court is an outrage which is
tolerated nowhere else.
In the early English courts the tes-
timony of many witnesses was not ad-
missible without the application of
torture, and a party to a suit could
render a witness against him incom-
petent by challenging him and whip
ping him in court. The number of
witnesses and the social standing Of
each were of the greatest importance,
but their veracity seems not to have
been considered. Heretics, excom-
municants, adulteresses, minors, slaves
enemies and interested parties were
not allowed to testify at all, regard
less of what they could tell or how
truthful they were. 1t is we'll known
that ignorant people respect and rely
upon those things which are myster-
ious to them in preference to those
which they are able to understand.
Therefore nearly all persons who ac-
tually knew something about the
facts of the case were not allowed to
testify at all, but witch was regard
ed as one of the most acceptable wit
nesses. At the present time priests,
physicians, lawyers, high officials, the
accused and his family and others
who know most about the case and
could inform the court most correctly
are privileged" not to testify but the
testimony of a handwriting fraud or
an anonymous sleuth is always very
highly esteemed. Those who do tes-
tify are never required to proceed with
true scientific caution, but are always
compelled to solemnly swear that they
will tell the whole truth and moth
ing but the truth" Then they are
prevented from telling anything ex-
cept what the numerous Rules of Ev-