The Topeka state journal., 1914-01-27
ATTORNEYS HERE.

kIIUkIVEYS hEItE.
CONTINUED from Page one.)
technicaiity. or slip. or mistaken step
in procedure In applying the statute
and its own rules the court may have
made mistakes. It makes no claim to
fnfallibility, but simply exercises Its
best judgment. trying to be careful az
all times to repreas 5ockeying and to
make correct procedure an effective in
strument, merely, for securing Justice.
and not an end In itself to be vindt-
Gated at all hazards.
"The results of the courts work for
the biennium under consideration are
not quite contained in four printed
volumes Of approximately LOCO pages
each. (Kansas Reports, vols. S7-9O.
The people of the state generally are
absolutely uninformed Of the contents
of these volumes. A few cases Of pub
lie interest have been brought to their
attention and B.. few individuals have
made cursory examinations to obtain
information upon particular subjects
But the men and women OF the state
who have the right and who have the
power. by constitutional amendment
and by insistence upon legislation, to
mold their system Of jurisprudence into
any form they may desire are not Ia
miliar with the courts own exhibf-
ton Of what 1t has done, the methods
it employs. and the justifications re-
lied on to support its action.
THE civil code contains a provision
the technical errors and Irregularities
in proceedings shall be ignored and
that appeals shall be determined ac-
cording to the substantial justice Of
the case az appears from the whole
record. >The court has constantly and
r>rv. {u<r le, -, de-
statute according to it's true intention.
Perhaps it has fallen somewhat short
at times and has gone a little too far
at other times. but page after page of
the Kansas reports attests the sincerity
Of the effort.
Doctrine Of Presumed Prejudice.
Much has been said within the last
few years about the doctrine of pre-
sumed prejudice that Is, the doc
been violated by the trial court the
supreme court will take 1t for granted
that the party against whom the rul-
ing was made was prejudiced and will
grant new trial. That doctrine never
did obtain in this. state, and no de-
clarations of the court are more COM
mon than that a wrong ruling was
tnconseQuential because 1t did not ap-
pear. that harm in fact resulted. and
that, notwithstanding the fact that
error WIS committed in the course of
trial. substantial justice was in fact
done.
Some decisions must necessarily
appear to the unthinking and the un-
instructed as technical. The statute
provides that notice of q specific kind
shall be given a precise number of
days before a special election for GER
tain purposes can be held. The court
can not sustain any other kind of no.
fff7ra g. - I'd
OF time. It can not substitute its judg-
ment Of what would be fair or reas-
enable notice for the judgment Of the
legislature. The statute provides that
an action must be commenced within
| one year. two years. three years. or
five years.
The. court can not say that liti-
CANT who has delayed bringing his suit
for even a few days or a few weeks
beyond the fixed period can have more
time, except in those cases where the
law itself provides for an extension.
In providing for the service of a no.
tice of appeal the legislature itself
has distinguished between personal
service and service by mail.
and has required personal SER
vice upon residents Of the state.
Manifestly notice by mail, which is
permitted only upon non-residents, is
insufficient when the party to be serv-
ed Is resident of this state In all
these cases. and in many others of like
character. the court can neither legis-
late nor grant dispensations to favored
suitors. and its rulings to that effect
are not technical in any sense Of the
term.
THE popular impression is that the
court il still bound by the precedent
of decisions which have been rendered
AZ Shakespeare understood the courts
to be at the time he wrote the play.
The subject Is too large to be treated
here. 1t may be observed, however.
that the common law Of England has
been adopted in this state only SO far
as it is not modified by constitutional
and statutory law and by the wants
and conditions of the people. Every
thing helpful and beneficial in the
system has been utilized. But when
ever q rule of the common law has
! been invoked which the court deemed
unsuited to the needs and circum-
stances Of the people it has been re-
jected.
Contrary to Law Of Venice.
Contrary to Portals law, the court
found way to alter a decree estab-
lished. Jane Caldwell recovered judg-
ment on a beneficiary certificate is
America insuring the life Of her hus-
band, w. II. Caldwell. The proof OF
! death consisted in proof of absence
! for a sufficient length Of time and
unoer sucn circumstances as TO raise
! a presumption of death. The defen-
! dant appealed and the judgment waa
! affirmed, there being no error in the
| proceedings. A motion for a rehear-
| ing was filed, and while it was pend
ing the defendant offered to show to
the court that Caldwell was alive. The
time for opening the judgment in the
district court under the statutory pro-
vision permitting such action had ex-
pired. The court granted q rehearine
on the question whether Caldwell
were dead or alive, and gave leave to
both parties to produce evidence on
that subject. The defendant furnish
ed evidence showing that Caldwell was