St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1914-03-11
COURT PROCEDURE
(Contlnued from nage I'd

tinuance, and the court before con-
tinufng a case must be well satisfied
that injustice would be done the
party asking for IL, IL such continu-
ance is denied, and If the court is
not so satisfied, 1t will proceed to
near the case whether the other side
is ready or not, or will render judg-
ment without hearing IL the case is
of such a character as to permit it.
Applicants for admission to the bar
are now examined by a state COM
mittee and the examination is of a
very strict character and well de-
signed to bring out the fact of wheth-
er the applicant is qualified for ad-
mission to the bar.
Can Have Speedy Trials.
Except in rare cases, as hereinafter
stated, Ii cannot be said, that under
our practice and procedure, one can
not have a speedy trial in county
court and that suitors are kept there
an unreasonable time awaiting for
an opportunity to try their cases, for
the facts are the other way. There
is not a county in the State in which
a sutton may not try his case as
soon as is provided by law, unless
some accident occurs preventing the
other side from being ready, such
as sickness etc. My experience and
that of my associates, so far as
know, is that every sutton can try
his case and does try it when he
wants to do so. if 1t is ripe for trial
and the other side cannot and does
not show by ample proof that in
Justice would be done him If forced
to trial at that term, and very few
cases are continued now where
either party wants to try his case.
No rule of court nor even law can
force parties to try their cases II
neither desires to do so. The most
that a rule or law can do is to say
that unless a case is disposed of with
in a given time it shall be discon-
tinued by the court for want of
prosecution. This measure we in
corporated into our rules of 1909
and we made the time limit at four
years. Some of the Judges and at
torneys in the state thought it ought
to be shorter and some thought it
ought to be longer, but the majority
thought four years was the proper
limit, and so it was fixed at that as
he proper time, based upon the eX-
perience of the majority of the pro-
tession. Most of the cases brought
to the county court are tried within
a year after they are entered in court,
and many of them within six months.
By this statement / mean the cases
brought to the county court intended
to be tried. In looking over my
September Term, l find that all the
cases tried at that term, except one
were less than a year old and some
were less than six months old. From
this it would seem that four years
was an unnecessary length of time
to allow a case to remain on the |
docket, but the advocates for that |
time, speaking from experience, urg- |
ed the fact that all lawyers knew, |
that the great number of suits |
brought to court were never intended |
to be tried, but were brought there |
for another purpose and were kept |
on the docket because of the original |
purpose; that parties frequently died |
and representatives had to be
brought in, witnesses were some
times sick, and the evidence was in
a foreign land or away in distant
city, and various other grounds were
urged too numerous to mention
here; but all agreed that this limita-
ton of four years would in no way
affect the great bulk of litigation;
hat the rule that parties to case
set for trial must be ready to try
It when reached, was sufficient to
bring about a speedy trial and that
suitors desiring to try their case
could do so under that rule. l am
yet to hear a sutton complaining that
he cannot get a trial because of our
procedure 1 have seen him COM
in a few instances that his
attorney had not been true to him
Ind had neglected his case and had
lot brought it on for trial when he
ought to have done so, but the court
md it's procedure is not responsible
or such neglect. The only thing
hat can be done in such cases is to
ring the offending attorney before
he Supreme Court and disbar him if
iuch complaint is made out, which
he Supreme Court will promptly do,
tut it is not the injured sutton who
S complaining of our court pro-
and with reason no one can
10 so respecting our court rules, If
hey will carefully examine them.
New Rules of Chancery.
Among the rules of chancery. not
,efore mentioned by me, which the ;
judges promulgated in 1909, :
,e set up in the answer, thereby
wedding the old and udilatOry method !
# doing so by cross-bill, and another {
for the hearing of
hancery case by the court upon oral
as soon as the issue was !
oined, and that the case should stand ;
or trial at the close of each regular I
ERIN of County Court and should /
lot be continued, if either party de- !
ired a trial, unless sufficient cause /
vas shown by the party asking for [
he continuance, and the rules make I
t difficult to get a continuance if !
ither side desires to try the case. I
n other rules the old English Chan |
cry practice is very much simplified
nd changed to expedite the proceed {
ire of our court.
For those who think our court is !
lot progressive, it is well to note,
p 1T in a little more than three I
ears after the superior judges pro- i
nulgated our present rules last above {
the United States Sup s
emo Court .odOnfad similar rules for &