New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-16
TO END THE LAWS DELAYS

In making the proposals for curing
the laws delays which Governor SUI
zer transmitted to the Legislature yes
terday the Board Of Statutory Consol-
idation is generally guided by the ex-
perience of England. If these proposals
should he adopted justice would cease
IN he. as il long since ceased TO be III
England. where similar changes were
adopted, a game in which the empha-
sis is on the rules Of play rather than
on the results. No more valuable re-
form could be brought about than
this. The board which proposes the
changes is singularly able one ana
has done a great work for the state III
consolidating its statutes. Its men,
hers are Adolph ]. Rodenbeck, William
Il. Hornblower. John G. Milburn, Adei-
bert Moot and Charles A. Collin. all
leading members Of the legal profession
in various parts Of the state. and their
recommendations carry great weight
II is better to abandon the Code or
Civil Procedure than to patch it. 1t
has already been patched beyond hui
man understanding. Every year the
legislature has tinkered with it, until
It is so complicated that familiarity
with it is a speciality in the legal pro-
fession. Besides, the experience OF
other communities is all in favor of
short practice act. As for the other
changes proposed, it is plain common
sense that 1.-THE court should have full
.'pover 10 disregard, in the interest OF
Justice. at any stage Of the case. any
mistake, irregularity or defect which
does not affect the substantial rights
"of a party" That needs only to be
stated to meet the approval Of any SEN
sible man.
Another recommendation equally SEN
sible would put an end to the schemes
by which trial judges are trapped into
errors and the patience of the litigant
with Justice on his side is worn out by
his opponent through appeals and new
trials. Under the proposed rule the
Appellate Court. instead of ordering q
new trial, would take further proofs
when deemed necessary for bringing
"out all the facts material TO the con-
"troversy. and render final Judgment
'in accordance with the law applicable
ito all the facts Of the case thus
brought before the Appellate Court.
Why not? Why order new trial and
l..f bn tot 20
expense, when all that is necessary Is
for the Appellate Court TO hear the
witness or witnesses whose testimony
has been improperly excluded and rem
der decision accordingly. The thing is
so obviously the sensible and natural
thing to do that it is difficult to speak
with patience Of the failure TO do II
during all these years in which bar
associations and the bench have been
saying IL ought to be done.
The other proposals are too technical
for newspaper to pass upon with con-
fidence. But the high standing OF
those who make them and the good
sense of the rest Of the recommends.
tions inspire faith in these. The de
murrer. which il is proposed to abolish
is familiar to the public as one Of the
most prolific sources Of legal delay
Upon it lawyers are wont to exhaust
the resources of medieval subtlety.
Governor Sulzer is right In urging
that the board making these recon-
mendations be continued in Office unit
1t can draft bills embodying its pro
( posals. If public opinion IS sufficiently
insistent a great reform may be &C
complished.