Mexico weekly ledger., 1918-01-10
nnnH.n
THE REVISION OF MlSSOU-
RI'S c. CODE
by JUDGE DAVID H. HARRIS,
of 34th Judicial Circuit, Fulton, Mo.

sas City, Jefferson City, ana othe'
places in the State, an article on Code
Revision in Missouri, by Judge David
Harris, of Fulton, appearing in the
number Of the st. Louis Law
Review, is of present interest and
Space forbids a reproduction
Of the entire article, a considerable
Of which is on a professional
and technical nature, but the follow
ing excerpts will be of interest to
readers:
"The civil and criminal codes Of
Missouri were, in the instance, largely
borrowed from the codes of the older
states, our present civil code dating
from the year 1895. Starting with
two hundred and seventy-three short
sections, including those relating to
ehaneery practice, it has grown by
amendments and additions to nearly
one thousand sections, some of which
are Of great length and V many
subjects. In addition, u criminal
code contains about five hundred sec
tons. During the past eighty years
these codes have, in the main, re-
manned the same, with additions and
amendments now and then as above
indicated, but which have not always
resulted in their betterment. Since
their adoption, no general revision has
been attempted, imperative as has
been the need resulting from the
changed social and economic condi-
tions of the State.
sour present code of civil pro-
cedure is not wholly bad nor is it
designedly vicious, but it is too rigid
and yields itself too readily to the
sporting theory of justice, invites
delays and is full of pitfalls for the
feet of the unwary. 1t gives undue
Importance to the record so that in
many instances we have the spectacle
of the court devoting its whole time
and energy to a trial Of the record,
and not of the cause upon its merits.
1t allows too much piece-meal dispo-
sition of controversies. In involves
or permits too many trials and too
much r%etrial, especially as to issues
Of fact. In addition, it is freely
charged that litigation costs more in
Missouri than in any other state in
the Union. Whether this latter
charge be true cannot be asserted
from personal knowledge or expert.
n c Of the writer, but II cannot be
denied that our system strongly tends
to the excessive unnecessary accumu.
lation of costs. 1t is certainly within
the personal exerience or observation
of every practicing lawyer in this
state that cases involving originally
but small amounts or trivial matters
can be. and not infrequently are, kept
in court until these costs largely ex-
coed the amount involved"
In speaking of the delays permitted
by u laws, Judge Harris says:
"Our constitution declares tina
right and justice should be admins
tered without sale, denial, or delay
yet in our highest and final court il
this state a litigant in an ordinar!
civil action cannot now expect a de
cision of his case in less than tire
years, and sometimes longer; and /
there be a reversal and the cas- is re
manded for another trial, and tn
whole torturous process required u
be repeated, the time that he is KEEP
in court, trial and appellate, may b
and oftentimes is extended to six an
even ten years and longer. This de
lay in many instances amounts to a
absolute denial of justice. An actua
case may be given as typical Of man,
others. More than ten years ago, /
one Of the circuits Of this state, an &C
ton was begun by an unlettered, pen
niless and aged woman for the pos
session Of forty acres of unimprove
land to which she claimed title by gif
! from the former owner with whor
she had lived and whom she had faith
fully served for forty years prior I
is death. The proof as to the gil
was overwhelming and thorough
convincing and in fact has never bee
seriously co~ntroverted by the defer
dants, but upon one ground and ar
other the case has been to the 81
preme court three separate times, tn
last appeal resulting in the case be
ing reversed and remanded for a ne
trial, so that as far as the final dc
termination Of the litigation is cor
cerned, the case is now just where
was when first begun, and under OF
system Of procedure it is still poss
BILE to keep it in court indefinitely
The plaintiff is now nearly ninet
years of age, and in the usual cours
Of human experience ean hardly e,
pect to outlive the lawsuit begun b
her more than ten years ago. Az
Stunning the merit Of the plaintiff
claim, who would have the hardihoo
to say that the delay in this case ha
not amounted to a substantial denii
Of justice? But it may be elaine
that this is an exceptional case. tt
deplorable fact, however, is that it
not, but can be duplicated in the e1
perience or observation Of every rel
utable attorney Of general practice
the state. In 1906, the City Of 81
Louis passed a law regulating III
construction of billboards, yet fC
fully seven vnara II was a dead lettt