The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1911-02-03
VOICE OF
- THE -.
p EOPL e
SIMPLIFY COMPLAINTS

To the Editor OF the Indianapolis News:
SRI read with much interest the
series of articles which you published
last fall concerning the technicalities
of our legal procedure and the laws
delay" and urging the need of reform.
and I was and am in full accord with
the sentiments then and there ex-
pressed.
But 1 can not coincide with you in
condemning the action Of the commit
tee on judiciary in the house of repre-
senatives for reporting adversely to the
bill, introduced at the suggestion of
the Indianapolis Bar association, to re-
quire demurrer to a complaint to
state specifically the grounds Of objec-
ton. This requirement. would add new
ing. which is already much too techni-
cal, and the appellate courts would be
kept busy for SOME time in passing
upon the question whether given
statement of objections to a complaint
was specific enough or not.
This attempted reform begins at the
wrong end. The need of the hour is
not to have technical defects in COM
plants pointed out specifically, but to
do away with the necessity OF technical
allegations in a complaint and make
demurrers unavailing.
The object of complaint Is to in
form the defendant of the nature Of
the cause Of action that he is to meet.
and thus give him the opportunity to
prepare his defense against the facts
charged and the allegations must be
plain and specific enough not to mis-
| lead or surprise the defendant when he
| meets his adversary upon the trial.
neither reason nor justice requires that
| the complaint should pass muster as a
| literary or a sample of philosophic or
logical statement; these may serve to
"adorn the tale" but are unnecessary
| for the narration.
Take, for instance. the case that you
called the Thereby" case, Cumberland
Telephone company VS.. Pierson. ITO Ind.
| 543 A complaint in such as case as
| that should be sufficient If it were in
| this form:
On the -. day of the plaintfh
was driving with load of hay upon
Walnut street. In the town of Dale, and
was thrown down and injured by be-
| ing caught by a wire which the defend
| ant had permitted to hang across the
f, street slack and loose, that he suffered
| injuries by the fall, and demands judg
ment for $4,000
II the defendant wants to know any
more about the circumstances our
statutes give the motion to make more
specific. and also permit interrogatories
to be submitted for the plaintiff to an
swer and also permit the plaintiffs ex-
| animation before the trial.
Our statutes require complaint in
| cases before justices of the peace, but
our supreme court has held, time and
again. that any statement showing the
nature of the plaintiffs claim. and such
that the Judgment will bar another
| suit will be sufficient complaint
There is absolutely no reason for
greater technicality in pleading in the
courts of record.
/ If this rule were established for our
courts of record, by an amendment
to the section of our code concerning
the complaint, reform would be eff
fected that would make impossible the
technical rulings which are now a bio,
upon the administration of justice in
jar state.
In this connection it may be said
however. that our courts are not te
blame for the system / mean the courts
of the present day. The system has
been developed through a long line o.
decisions. and under the rule of stare
decisis. which In itself is q salutary
rule, the courts of the present day car
. not uproot the system, but that car
only be done now by legislative enact
ment
/ The blame is on the courts that set
tied the meaning of the provisions o
the code of reformed procedure of 1852
when they first came up for considera
ton. The fact is that the spirit of re
} form. which underlay the enactmen
of the code of 1852, never entered thu
mind of the supreme court of that pc
riod. otherwise we should not have ha,
!. decisions abounding In technical re