White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1927-07-15


is, twelve persons chosen at random
from the body Of the people. Ultirn-
stely,. the king was COMPELLED to
give the right Of trial by jury and
that right became fixed thing in
English Jurisprudence. The people
considered it one of their most yalu-
able and precious rights. The idea
was brought to America by our FORE
fathers and it at once became an
established right here and was written
into our Federal Constitution and in
to the constitution Of the various
states. The Jurors to determine the
law that should be applied to a GER
tain set of facts, the jurors, coming
fresh from the people are better able
to determine the facts than the judi
ges. The results is that where a
jury has decided as to the facts no
court is at liberty, under ordinary
circumstances, to make a contrary
finding.
j think I can better express ray
idea by giving an illustration of two
cases. We will say that they are
personal injury cases where the plain
t2f is seeking damages of the de-
fendant 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 driv-
ing the automobile sounded his horn.
One of,rtfese, cases is tried in the
lower court before jury. The other
is tried before judge without jury.
In each case the plaintiff only testified
that the defendant did not blow his
horn. He does not have any other
witnesses to that fact The defend
ant brings forward five competent,
disinterested and intelligent wit.
nesses who swear that he did blow
his horn. Such is the testimony
in each of the two supposed cases.
The jury in the one case finds that
the defendant did not blow his horn,
ard the plaintiff is given Judgment
In the other case the Judge finds as
che jury did in its case; that is, that
the horn was not sounded, and gives
the plaintiff judgment. Both cases
are appealed to tn supreme court.
That court will be bound by the YER
theory Of the law and the practice in
America, the jury is the exclusive
judge of testimony. After reading
dict of the jury because, under the
the evidence very carefully tn coure
may be thoroughly Convinced that
the jury ought to have decided the
other way, but the verdict cannot
be- interfered with. Consequently the
Judgment for the plaintiff is affirmed.
But in the case which was tried by
the judge without jury, the supreme
court has a right to consider and
weigh the evidence and hold that the
Judge was wrong on the facts and
that the testimony was in favor Of
the, defendaa.1 and iti4e coutt will
probably hold that the Judgment
should be for the defendant and not
for the plaintiff. While these sup
posed cases are somewhat extreme
IN tlls.-ls' facts, they illustrate that
IL case where the facts are de-
tern1ined by jury, the hands. of the
supreme court, in SO far as the facts
are concerned, are practically tied
whereas, the contrary is true where
the trial court alone decided the facts
1t should be said that where the cour,
is satisfied from reading of the re
cord that there is no substantial test
;r,o1,y supporting the verdict of the
Jury, it may set it aside. In othel
words, if there is no testimony, tn
verdict must fall. By this action tn
court does not weigh the testimony
because it finds there is none t.
weigh.
It will thus be seen that the su
preme court is not responsible, to an.
considerable extent, for the proper de
cision of the facts in case tried to
Jury. Generally speaking, the result
that in all cases heard by the tris
court without a jury the supren1
court has right to and does decid
the case strictly upon its merits bot
as to the facts and the law, br
where the case has been, tried to
Jury the court is limited almost EN-
4 TREY to questions of law; that i
whether the trial court properly II
structed the jury as to the law
| whether the court erred in it's ruling
concerning the admission of evidenc
or whether there were other NOR
or less similar errors committed b
the trial court.
Amount and Character of the Wor]
The supreme court hears and Ok
cides between 900 and 700 cases eac
year and each of it's members write
in the neighborhood of rs opinion
each year. These opinions averae
six or seven printed pages each, an
often represent the decision of OK
ceedingly complicated, difficult an
importan questions of fact and Law
The supreme court, being the higi
est court of the state, interprets til
law by which all citizens are cor
trolled in their personal conduct an
business affairs. There is no appe;
from its decisions, except in fe'
instances to the Supreme Court OF tn
United States. Not more than a
average Of two or three cases ps
4 year, decided by the supreme cou1
of the state, are taken to the Supren
Court of the United States, SO thu
TIE decision of the supreme court
the state is absolutely final in ninety
nine per cent Of the cases dispose
of by it.
The work OF this supreme court
probably as heavy as any like coul
in the United States, and muc
heavier than most of them. Fe
illustration, each judge Of the suprem
court of the state of Washington
writes each year about rs opinions
Following is the average number c
opinions per Judge. per year, Of tn
highest courts of the following states
taLer AZ rapdor,, (Theca f;o,rAe or.