The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-11-10
Agee Submits Three Impor-
 tant Rules to Mcclellan
ADVANTAGES OF RULE
Paper of Anniston Lawyer Consid- cred to Be Clear Analysis of One of Imperative Needs of
 States Judicial System
By LEWIS $. BETTY

Montgomery, November 9-(Special.) Three important rules looking to the simphlcation of the giving of charges which obtains in the courts of the state have been submitted to Justice Thomas c. Mcclellan of the supreme court by A. P. Agee of Anniston. These rules will be transmitted to the supreme court by Judge Mcclellan when that tribunal meets in special session next month to consider the adoption of new rules of practice.
 MT. Agees paper is considered to be clear analysis of one of the imper- ative needs of the states judicial sys- tenn, and it is probable that his rec concentrations will receive a great deal of consideration by the court. He gives clear, consize reasons for the adop ton of each rule suggested by him and his paper shows u careful and eNiia tis- tive study of the system of charges.
 MT. Agee's recommendations are as follows:
 Rule A
 "When in the trial of any cause, in court of original jurisdiction, if eith-
  tive charge and such motion is re- fused by the court, such refusal will not be considered as an error unless the record shows that the grounds for such motion were specified. In all cases the presiding judge, before ruling on such motion, may call on counsel to specify the grounds upon which it Is rested and the appellate court in re- viewing such decision must consider only the grounds specified to the court for the giving of such charge.
 Why Rule "A" Should Be Adopted
 "rhe supreme court has authority 10 establish rules of practice in that court and all other courts of record in the state not contrary to the provisions ef the code. (section 5955 subdivision 4) The court has, therefore, as shown by rule 3S of practice in the circuit and inferior courts of common law jurisdic- ton, provided that the trial judge Is rot bound to consider, upon objection to testimony, any grounds for the ob- jectionA except such as may be as signed Nby counsel. 1t would, there fore, seem absolutely clear that when the dulr4dllNe cndfRe IS FeQueslu tue court need Anot consider any reasons why it should be given except such as may be assigned by counsel. The court Is not supposed to understand the case on trial better than the parties to the litigation, and 1t Is expecting too much of judge to ferret out reasons why the affirmative charge should be given that are not known to counsel and # is only fair to the court that counsel be required to state his grounds.
 "The right is given by section 5364 Of the code to either party to move for charges in, writing and the judge is hound to give or refuse the charge, but the adoption of rule specified IS A would not affect the right given under 5364, but would merely regu- late the way in which the right should be exercised. 1t is true that the court cannot make rules contrary to the pro- visions of the code, but there is TO conflict in the rule and in the statute, but merely a regulation as to how the right may be enjoyed.
 "The bill of rights provides that eV- cry citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. but the legislature may regulate this right So, also, may the court in pre- scribing rules of practice provide how such right may be exercised
 Defects That Would Be Remedied
 Tn criminal cases it often happens that the solicitor overlooks proof cf the venue, or if 1t is not overlooked, if hapnauS at timaa that if is proven.