Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-01-18

before more imam iNo interested spec
tators. mostly members of the General
Assembly. 10 answer for the benefit OF
the members OF the Legislature qucs-
tions seeking to expedite their efforts
In dealing with tho adoption OF the
new Code.
JUDGE BURIls EXPLAINS
WORK OF" REvISERS
Judge Burks, speaking before the
committee yesterday afternoon said
that il would be a physical Impossible
ity TO present to the Senate such Il
report as required by the resolution
of Senator Buchanan, and that the Cen
cral Assembly would have TO take a
great deal OF the work on faith unless
they read it themselves. The only ad-
vice the members received along the
line sought was that IL was possible, in
an indefinite time perhaps less than a
week. for the sections changed to be
checked of But as probably two
thirds OF them have been changed
some only in verbiage and others in
substance. Judge Burls. Mr.. Anderson
and Clerk Williams all asserted that it
was stupcndous task that could not
he done during the session OF the Leg.
islature to segrcEate the substantial
changes from those Of diction only.
Judge Burks and Mr.. Anderson declined
to advise the committee in what man
advised that the adoption IS 4 whole at
once and fu;urc amendments cons;i
tuted the only sane method Of pro-
cecdurc.
Judge Burks said that the younge-
members OF the bar were bowling for
Code procedure. and that the revisers
had changed section 32il 10 allow
every action al Law to proceed by mo-
ton. He said they were reluctant en-
.
the bar who had learned common law
pleading, SO that II was the intention
10 let the Code methods grow grad
ually out OF this change IL fou:.d good.
And in criminal cases he aid that a
change allowed the State four percmp-
tory challenges o. jurymen as wei: As
the defendant as they had in mind TO
allow the accused always one fair trial.
and this did not hinder the fairness O..
a trial.
IMPOSSIBLE TO pHF.P!RE
OPINIONS On EVERY CASE
Judge Burks said that {, was an error
TO assert that the new Code required
the judges on the Court of Appeals to
render statement OF reasons for every
writ OF error or appeal refused. He
further stated that that would equal
writing an opinion In every case con-
sidered--a task that would overburden
the judges and delay their work. !,
was said 10y Judge Burks tina. some
OF the subjects in the old Code were
in very bad shape. and had TO be al-
most entirely rewritten, as in the case
or attachments, which he said they
wha ekcd all 10 pieces and made as
simple as possible" adding only one
ground; namely. that OF a fugitive from
justice. Mr.. Burks stated that in the
section referring 10 mechanics liens
they struck out tho clause making the
owner OF building personally re-
sponsible 10 the man who furrishc cd
the material TO the contractor be-.
cause II was the source OF too much
trouble and could be attended 10 in
every case by separate contracts be-
tween tho owner and the furnisher. IL
INC latter was UNWILLING 70 ,rus, the
contractor. -
He stated tina. IN the law Of evidence
there were so many exceptions to The
Scction removing interest as Il dlsnuali-
Hcat!ons 10 testify that the new Code
removed al! disdual!ilcations exceE,
that of confidential communications
and relations. lie insisted tina there
was no reason .or the courts not deal
inB with business men in "A business
was ms they dealt among themselves.
CHANGE MADE As no
'oH1RinIlONr NEG LIGENCE
What seems "a be a favorable change
- one in the law Of damages making.
contrlbutory negligence on the part Of
one injured or E!iled at railroad cross
inEs ana such places no bar TO recovery.
where it. Is FIRST clearly established
,hht tho railroad - guilty OF ucrl
ccncc itself lie also said tina, IN.
revisers had seen 1T TO enlarge the
penalty for Involuntary manslaurh,cr
showing tho penalty 10 be :hat Of a
.eiony in "FEraNated cases in the dis
cretion of Tie jury. He placed This
on the ground Of too many people brinc,
killed by stree, car and automobjle
drivers IN reckless disregard for nfc.
Judge Burks advised the committee
that they started out ny determining
70 do nothing contrary to public rnlicy
and good. he said mat they also ala
not offer any new law tina, all three
OF then did not concur IN rs equitable
and just. He remarked that II ,heir
code would not stano inyestiration
they would fee! that their WORK mad
been useless and that it mus, come IN
the light Of day as they wanted +,
30 do.
mr. Anderson stated tina, they rad
had in view the sirnplifcation Of N.
methods and the expedition Of tho adj
ministration OF justice; that thcy had
given every section careful considern
ton separately and Jointly. bo,b
''' @ ''''9''cn lousy ana the
wisdom OF their work VAS now for
others 10 consider. and tho future "a
determine.
( Clerk Williams then. for the JencG.
of those present. went into = sorucvb,,
detailed account Of the preparation and
) printing Of the Code A a result Of
/ the whole meeting and the discussion
by the three concerned win the prepa.
+ ration OF the new code mos, +,
not all, The opposition and fear an.
pearcd to have melted. though some
{ took the view that the meeting had
ayailed nothing.
: At the Central ). VI. ca