The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1926-12-30
Continued from Dec. is Issue)

petition the court for rehearing.
In this petition the attorney will
point out any mistakes or errors,
either of fact or law, into which
he thinks the court has fallen.
These petitions for rehearing come
into the hands of all the judges.
If a certain number be convinced
that the court may have been in
error, the case is set down for re-
argument at some future time.
Otherwise, the petition is denied.
Decision of Cases on their
Merits
I am sure most people outside
the legal profession believe that
the supreme court considers every
case upon its merits and so de-
cides it. This idea is true in so far
as the legal points are concerned,
but it is not necessarily true as
to the disputed facts. So far as
the supreme court is concerned
there are always two things in ev-
cry case-the facts, and the law
based upon the facts. But it should
be remembered that in nearly all
cases the facts are in dispute and
before the law can be applied the
facts, must be determined.
lie the case has been tried to the
superior court judge without a
jury, then supreme court is per-
mitted to review the testimony and
come to its own conclusions as to
what are the true facts land thus
tries the case strictly upon its
merits. 1t, however, will nearly al
ways resolve any doubt it has on
the facts in favor of the conclu-
sion reached by the trial court,
because that court had the wit
nesses before it and is in some
what better position than the SUI
preme court to determine what the
true facts are, the supreme court
is practically without authority to
determine otherwise.
Hundreds of years ago the judy
es in England were probably not
as impartial as they should have
been and were influenced too much
by the view of the king who APP
pointed them. The common people
of that day complained very Bit
terly about the operation of the
courts, particularly when a man
was charged with the commission
of some crime. Gradually there
grew up very persistent demand
from the people that the facts of
their cases be decided by twelve
persons like themselves; that is,
twelve persons chosen at random
from the body of the people. u
timately, the king was compelled
to give the right of trial by jury
and that right became a fixed
thing in English Jurisprudence.
The people considered it one of
their most valuable and precious
rights. The idea was brot to Amer
lea by our forefathers and it at
once became an established right
here and was written into our fed
eral constitution and into the con-
stitutions of the various states.
The view has always been that
while the Judge is better able than
the Jurors to determine the law
that should be applied to a GER
tain set of facts, the jurors. COM
ing fresh from the people, are
better able to determine the facts
than the judges. The result is that
where a jury has decided as to
the facts, no court is at liberty,
under ordinary circumstances, to
make a contrary finding.
/ think / can better express my
idea by giving an illustration OF
two cases. We will say that they
are personal injury cases where
the plaintiff is seeking damages
of the the defendant because the
latter negligently injured him. We
will suppose that both cases have
identically the same facts and
that the only dispute is whether
the defendant, who was driving
the automobile, sounded his horn
One of these cases is tried In the
lower court before a jury. The
other is tried before a judge with.
ont a Jury. In each case the plain
t;ff only testified that the defend
ant did not blow his horn. He does
NOT have any other witnesses tt
that fact. The defendant brings
forward five competent, disinter
aStad and intelligent witnesses
,,,ho swear that he did blow hls
Snrn Such is the testimony II
aoeh case of the two supposed cas-
&c The iury in the one case finds
60. 5efondant did not blow
L;s hnrn and the plaintiff is givel
: judgment. In the other case TN
nudge finds as the jury did Il
;ts Case that is, that the norm wa
l.s c so,,nded and gives the plain
n 1;fs ;,,dument. Both cases are ap
ILL 4o the supreme court. Ina
pea,tu viii ii he bound by the verde
coul. ;,,rv because, under tn
OF Ine the law and the practic
Theory o. the jury is the exclu
siye Judge Of tessin Herv carefnl I
reading the evidence ar rery c .ara,.
the court may be thorol ~ CONVINCE har.a Sc
tnat e .ha other way, but the yer
eided sne be interfered, witt
dict ca ,nntiv the Judgment for tn
Conseaaeei e affirmed. But In tn
plalntII - was tried by the judg
case Wnie = inry the supreme cour
th as evidence and :, n9 1be f fnas =. IN
nudge was wrong on yas IN fana -,
fhaf the testimony mdS +h nn a na,.o
Of the defendant, anu t tha Go9a a
I'll, nrobably hold tnae sne J9dg
ment shouio ~ aha plaintiff. Will