Arizona republican., 1917-12-22

additional suit to recover the money | so paid"
 MT. Bullard in summing up the sug- gestion made by Judge Smith said:
 T disagree with Judge Smiths rec ommendation that legislation be | adopted doing away with the right of appeal after conviction, except in | cases where a judge of the appellate 1 court, after an examination of the record, will certify over his signature that in his opinion the defendant should be admitted to bail for the reason that the trial court has com mited reversible error.
 "The individuality of such legisla tion lies in this: First, in my opinion, the opportunities for giving bail to defendant convicted of crime should be enlarged rather than restricted. Take the case of a man who is CT roneously convicted of an offense. By the time that a trial court can pass upon the validity of his conviction, he he is obliged to serve a large part of his sentence in the penitentiary If the appellate court finally determines that he has been illegally convicted, than as an innocent man, he has served a term in the penitentiary, and the law gives him no redress. He can neither sue the state foi damages nor be compensated in any way for the time that he, an innocent man, has been incarcerated.
 Second, I consider it extremely in advisable to require one judge of ali appellate court to render an opinion upon the question as to whether or Ial hn ho1 in, the lower court until the case has | been submitted to the appellate court upon briefs and argument. In other words, he might be placed in the em- barrassing position of having de- clared, on an application for bail, that there had been reversible error in the l lower court, and then, after hearing 1 the arguments and reading the briefs on appeal, be obliged to reverse an opinion given by him on such appli- cation.
 T also disagree with udge Smith | in his statement that the right of ap peal in civil cases should be in any way impaired, as long as sufficient security is given the party who wins in the lower court that his judgment will be paid.
 Laws should not be framed to diff l ferentiate between various classes. The rich man and the poor man have equal rights before the law, and the laws should be framed to apply to them equally. And to reason that because a poor man may have some difficulty in giving bond on appeal, a rich man should not be permitted to do so, is to argue for legislation in favor of one class and against an- other
 Under our present system of laws in Arizona three-fourths of our cases are tried by juries. Juries are often- times right in their verdict, but some- times wrong. And an aggrieved liti- gant, when he believes that either the jury or the court discriminated against him, should be afforded an opportunity without restriction to ap- peal from their decision, whether he be a rich man or a poor man. The statutes of Arizona at present pro- vide that the supreme court may as- sess penalties for frivolous appeals which constitutes a sufficient protec- tion to the appellee.
 T agree with Judge Smiths recom- mendation in respect to the probate practice. Under the present condi-
 tiOns of the probate law the probat-
 ing of any estate is an expensive pro- ceeding The objection which Judge
 Smith raises to the present probate
 practice can easily be met by an en-
 actment of law providing for a public
 administrator, who should receive 2 salary and not fees, and who should
 be permitted to employ an attorney a
 a salary to be fixed by statute. A!
 public administrator he would admin
 ister all estates where no application to administer has been made by tn, direct heirs of the deceased.
 T further agree with Judge Smith
 statement that an applicant for ad
 mission to the bar shoul have at leas three years law course in a school O recognized standing, or three year actual study and reading in a reput able law office"