The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-11-07

advantage which lasted for about a hundred years. But the reforms that were fnaugurated in England in 1875 and those that were effected previous 1y have had such far reaching inf1u- ence that the American system. as compared with the English, may be said to be in the horse-car stage of Jd0VelOpnaent.e sasJOrt .ff@nz-grs sss
 The practical 1superfortty. of the ple regulation of appeals and in the l comm on-sense form of. such legal documents as the indictment.
 first is from Rhode Island; the other is from England. Their comparative length and simplicity is interesting. to say the least.
 Date and place, etc.
 "A. B. being then sole and unmar- ried, in consideration that the plain tiff lthen also sole and unmarriedl of the said defendant that she would marry and take to husband the said her the said defendant then and there forthwith promised the said plaintiff that he would marry and take her to wife when thereunto re- duested; and although the said plain tiff, condding in the aforesaid prom fse of the said defendant, hath all ways from thence hitherto refused to marry or contract matrimony with any other man whatsoever, and still remain sole and unmarried and al- ways from the time Of making said pTO01lS6 WSS I6d0y dI4O WAAAA6 anu offered to marry and take to hus-. band the said defendant; viz, on, at the said, yet the said defen- dant not regarding his said promise but contriving to deceive and defraud the said plaintiff in these particulars and totally to hinder her from the prefsFent and met ptS gq1d by gneh mare riage hath not taken her, the said plaintiff to wife. though the said de- fendant afterwards, to wit on the - hath been thereto requested by the said plaintiff. But the said defen- dant hath always hitherto rsfused so to do. To the damage of the plain tiff $50.Oo0 as paid in her writ of. Wherefore she sues"
 Date, place, names of parties
 .eDecennber 27, 1906 defendant sver- baIIy promised to marry plaintiff. August 3, 1907, he married another woman. Plaintiff claims 1000 pounds damages
 The difference between the machin- cry for disposing. of appeals in the two countries is correspondingiy ter how unequivoca1 the evidence and the jury's verdict may have been. the convicted man always can stay sen tence by taking an appeal, which must be filed and considered as a mat ter of course. The man convlcreo of a crime in England can appeal on- has been found or that principle of law is involved.
 What Can Be Done?
 The American Bar Association has worked zeaIousIy for several years now to remedy the situation. Alter careful consideration. for over four wears, the committee in charge of the matter formulated a bill which was unanim ous1y approved practically in it's entirety at the annual meeting Of the association fn. 1908.
 Two successive congresses have con- sidered this bill in an amended form. but as vet it has failed to pass both houses.
 But even if Congress should pass a similar bill, only the federal courts would be inproved; the situation in the state courts, would not be affected Just how this crucial phase of the sit uation is to be remedied it is insup- erably difficult to say. Much de- bends on the attitude and the en- ergy of the state bar associations; and much upon the character of the press of the various states.