Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1922-11-07
PUNISHMENT OF CRIME
Continued From Page One.)

the disputed questions Of fact, better
serves the cause OF. justice and affords
less ground for reversal.
The important thing, after all, Is not
only to get a verdict but to have the
motion for new trial, which. usually
follows in case of conviction, passed
upon at the earliest practical date. 1
have known trial judges to hold up
these motions for II new trial for
months and months, sometimes for
whole terms of court. There is no ex-
ctse,for that except a lack of decision,
lack of diligence, and a lack Of due
regard for sense of judicial duty.
Too often this results from fear of
reversal or displeasure Of the losinS
party. A judge must be absolutely
impersonal, absolutely fair and fear
less in his judgments. He will make
fewer mistakes, maintain his own self
respect and, wager, likewise the re-
spect of more OF the public.
Ali errors of the trial judge can be
corrected by the higher court, save and
except the errors of delay IN getting to
trial and the delays during trial and
delays In failing to decide motions for
n new trial, all causing great expense,
not only to litigants, but also to the
public who furnish the machinery of
the law for the administration of JUS
tice, especially in criminal cases.
In order to insure an early decision
in cases submitted to the court, and
also one of the motions for new trial
or .rehearing, an amendment should be
made to the Constitution, fixing rea-
5onable limitation-say, sixty days
from the submission Of such case or
such motion to a court for decision
or authorizing the legislature to fix
some reasonable limit. The penalty
for failure to observe such limit, con-
stitutional or statutory, should be re-
fusal to pay the judges salary until
with his voucher certificate be filed
to the effect that there are no cases
uhiisposed of on his docket beyond the
time lifhit.
Reviews on Appeal.
I know no reason why public busi-
ness shouldNnot be dispatched and de-
cided as expeditiousIy as private busi-
ness, know no reason why the law
yer on the bench should be immune
from the usual responsibility to which
the business man holds himself in his
office. The latter, If successful, usually
cleans up his unfinished business be-
fore he takes his vacations. Why not
the Judge?
Justice should be not only swift, but
sure These considerations are much
more, Important than severity in deal
ing With the criminal classes. 1t is a
matter of common knowledge to those
who have given any study to the SUBJ
ject that Great Britain and her colo
nies today far surpass in both swift
ness and sureness OF justice in crimi-
nal casesi''alf ottfer civilized nations;
and nowhe do we find in England
the ridicule nd resentment that OBJ
tain among our people for the delays
and failures of justice in our criminal
jurisprudence.
We come now to the review by our
appellate courts.
Where the reviewing court passes
on the question, Is the verdict against
the weight of the evidence? all judges
are generally agreed that the rule to
justify a reversal shall be that the
verdict is clearly and convincingly
against the manifest weight of the ev-
idenSe. A mere difference of opinion
between the jury and the trial judge
upon? the one side, and reviewing
court on the other, that neither sees,
hears nor knows the witnesses, is not
sufficient to warrant reversal upon
that ground.
1t is a common experience that many
trials pivot upon the credibility of
witnesses. That credibility can be
judged only by seeing and hearing the
witness, his appearance and manner
upon: the stand, his fairness or want
of it,. all of which are practically de-
MED 10 a reviewing court. which reads
only the cold pages of the record. The
printed record does not disclose the
difference between a simple minded,
honest, truthful witness and n plausi-
bic, skillful scoundrel who has story
artfully framed in advance. The jury
men, however, are able to make that
distinctios, or at least some one of the
twelve is able to point it out to his
fellows.
But verdicts are set aside more gen.
orally for errors of law claimed dur
ing the trial, by which it is urged that
the prisoner is denied the fair and i'm
partial trial which the Constitution
ASSURES him.
Most of the states have in syllable
or spirit the provision that new trials
shall mot be granted except for errors
materially affecting some of the sub
stanttal rights Of the defendant. That
this Is sound law all are agreed. The