Year: 1870




The community have long felt the necessity OF Q
more speedy administration OF civil justice. Under
the existing system there are three courts OF coord
nate jurisdiction and 1t Is optional with the plain
tiff IN which OF them he will commence his suit and
bring 1t to trial. In whichever OF them he may COM
mence he is met with delay OF twenty days before
his adversary is required to answer, and this period
Is often extended by order OF the Court to forty and
even sixty days. Very often an answer good on its
face Is then interposed and II this happens towards
the close OF month another month inter-
venes before the cause can be put on the
calendar, because the calendar Is made up
the beginning OF the month, and notice OF four
teen days must be given before the case can be
placed on it. Having at last after all this delay, ar
rived there the parties must wait until their cause
reached. which In the supreme Court VIII take
about three years, nearly as long IN the Court OF
Common Pleas. and, perhaps year In she superior
Court In the meantime the defendant may fail or
one OF the parties die or some other accident hap
Den, which Will increase the delay, or even deprive
the party Of his remedy altogether. 1t s true that.
In few exceptional cases, In which the trial does
not occupy more than one hour the Court can take
It out OF s Order place it at tho head OF all other
causes and try it. But even In such case, If the
trial lasts than hour, IL can be broken OH
and the cause sent TO the foot Of the calendar Per-
SONS familiar with proceedings In courts can readily
imagine that 1t Is quite easy for counsel to spin out
q to make it occupy more than the hour IN
its trial, and thus insure delay But there are OBJ
jections In principle TO the practice which gives one
suitor priority Of hearing over another who has


first commenced his suit merely because 1t win take
less time to try the last case.


ruR PRESENT PRACTICE UNJUST TO ALA CASE IN


POINT.


There ia no justice in the practice An impartial
administration OF justice demands that each case
shall be heard In its turn that private individual
shall have preference over another, and that the
time necessary to a full investigation OF the merits
shall be devoted 20 1t, whether that be an hour or
day. An illustration win show how this practice OF
plac ing some causes ahead OF others be pr0nuc
tive OF great injustice. anJ each have claim
against U; that OF arises out OF several transac-
tions. that OF on a single transaction. AS suit
cannot be tried In an hour but must take Its place
on the calendar there to remain TWO or three years.
commences his suit TWO years after A. in the same
court and because by accident the trial can be nh
lshed In an hour he takes precedence or A, gets his
Judgment and collects his money six months before
fails, has not only profted nothing by his vIgi.
lance but enjoys the sarlsfaction OF paying large
crns c 20 nus In nca ms no,n pro-
to him. Even where the debt Is not LOST to the
dtor the delay in enforcing payment Of hs
money Is often productive Of great hardship, and
sometimes even OF financial ruin 1t Is true that
the law allows seven per cent interest for delay but
this interest is not compounded; and II suit should
last ten years, us often happens, and the debtor
should tnen responsible ne viii have TO pay SIM
PIE interest for the time during which he has had
the use OF the money, and perhaps been able to
double by some commercial enterprise, thus actu.
ally profting by hts dishonesty, while the creditor
whose money he has been using has been cramped
In his business for the want o. It, or been obliged to
borrow at usurious rates TO save himself. IL
needs no argument 70 show that tins ID all wrong,
and that change for the better should be effected
with as little delay as is consistent with the I'M
portance OF The subject. There should be
court, not hampered by too extensive juris
dlction over every variety OF cases, but whose
clal cases, and q creditor should be able TO COM
mence his suit and have trial inside OF thirty days.
The idea Of giving man twenty days, and some
times Iorty, or even sixty, to say whether he
owes the amount claimed or not is positive nard-
ship. Five days are ample for the purpose
So too unjust In the city to require fourteen
days notice OF trial because never means fourteen
days. but rs many wears as II VIII require TO reach
the case. In the country, where all causes can be
tried within a week OF the commencement OF the
term there may be some sense In the requirement
of the notice. but here IN the city 1t Is perfectly
absurd. Then, again. why should the notice be re.
CURED to be given for an arbitrary day, which IN
pracllce the first Monoay Of the month"; 1t would
be just simple to give 1t for any other day IN the
month, and place the cause on the calendar ana I'm
pssasassl! Try 4; g, sur CONSTITUTIONS


DEMANDS III. ). ..fIsic


TO the question How can these evils be renie-
died there ls but one answer. Justice must be
made certain and speedy, and in order to accom-
courts must be changed, mat their work Will be
more evenly divided. The recent amendment or





for the Court of Common Pleas. which will make
SIX judges In that court; but, even with the addi
tonal number, that court VIII be unable to do more
SIX judges for the last twenty years, and Is now
year In arrear OF It's business 1t cannot be denied
that as population increases litigation likewise
increases and prudent and sagacious legislation
will require the number Of judges to be in propor-
tion to the population. The Legislature certa 1nly
possesses the power 10 make some changes for the
DETER The existing Marine Court, which
an WI ar knnf oto onflv
occupied, can, by an increase In the number vi It's
judges and III Its jurisdiction, be made to accom-
pish nearly II not altogether what Is desirable.
In tnat court q SUIT can be commenced and tried
within TWO months, for the reason that parties
the cause IS tnen at once placed upon the calendar
for trial without further notice. There is earthly
reason why that court should any longer be limited
by the amount involved in the case A court which
can decide controversy involving $500 can just as
well decide one involving SIS 00Q; and as the course
OF procedure speedy, tnaC would be the most de-
siraDle tribunal LOT commercial cases. 1t viii be
readily seen that an Increase III the amount over
which 1t has jurisdiction. without a corresponding
increase IN the NUMBER OF judges, would be OF no
practical benefit, because, as the existing judges
nave enough Of work to do as II is, an Increase
IN the number Of suits would produce only
the same delay which now exists in the other
courts. The proper remedy, therefore, to
increase the jurisdiction ana number Of judges
OF tnat court, and at the same time prescribe the
practice, so as to make ir as speedy as 1t Is now.
Its proceedings and practice should be governed by
the existing Code OF Procedure. some legislation in
respect to that court Is absolutely necessary because
by the present constitution Judge sit in review
OF his own decision, and IT. AZ 1t sometimes happens
one judge should be related to one OF the parties,
ana therefore incompetent to try the case, and
another judge should try 1t, as he must, and An
appeal be taken from his decision, which must be
NOT 1S sls ps s ya5ss aPss apssa' muse SSua s
TO hear the appeal, and they must concur IN the
judgment pronounced. Now, In the case supposed
the first Judge could not participate IN the decision
because Of his relationship, the second because he
had decided the case and the third alone could not
hear any appeal. Even four judges would not be
enough because all appellate tribunal should never
consist Of less than three Judges as to insure
majority one way or the other: otherwise decision
could he pronounced. There should be at least i've
judges.


suggestion may De made here which, IL acted on,
wond tend to the relief o1 all the courts Much
OF the time OF courts and jurors is wasted in decd
ing trivial cases. such as eander, libel false impr
sediment assaults and batteries aud the ike. These
cases are very often brought in the higher courts
because, K verdict is obtained for fifty dollars the
costs will amount to more than one hundred and II
the verdict less than nifty the costs much US
the verdict. Sometimes days are occupied IN the