and the same jurors, who, in all probability, have not left their seats to find their verdict, remain in their places to hear it. The only exception is when the case has been a pro tracted one, lasting for more than a day, in which case heed is paid to their physical exhaustion. It is no uncommon thing for the same jury to sit in three or four con secutive cases. Then there is no interruption by opposing counsel, during the examination of witnesses, to object to the form or trend of counsel's questions or to the evidence. The exclama tion " I object! " is rarely heard in the Eng lish courts, and the counsel who uttered it more than once in the course of the trial of a case, unless he had the very best grounds for doing so, would regret his conduct, for he would doubtless be told from the bench, with withering sarcasm, that it was the judge's function, and not counsel's, to direct the course of procedure in that court. As to the rash man who might have the courage to command a witness not to answer a ques tion put to him until counsel had had the opportunity to argue it, words fail to express the dressing down he would receive for his impertinence from such a judge as the Lord Chief Justice. In fact, no skillful advocate in this country would dream of prejudicing his case by interrupting his adversary with objections to his method of examining a witness or to the evidence of the latter. It is assumed that counsel are sufficiently ac quainted with the rules of evidence to know what is relevant and competent, and that the judges are sufficiently alert to keep too will ing witnesses within bounds. An advocate who, knowingly and designedly, transgressed the rules would have so little credit with the courts that he could not be employed by solicitors, however much they might be dis posed to encourage his practices. He sim ply could not win their cases for them. Above all the judges study to economize their time and that of the public. The rules
require that copies of the pleadings be lodged in court beforehand, for the use of the judges. These enable the latter to familiarize themselves with the issues. With the pleadings are also handed up to the bench, in many instances, copies of the correspon dence and the documents which are relied upon. These documents, long before the trial, have been " produced " and " inspected" and " admitted " by the parties, and accordingly the time that would otherwise be consumed in calling witnesses to prove them is saved. The judge, therefore, before the case has been formally opened, knows enough about it to assist both counsel in getting at all the facts, and to prevent either of them from dragging in irrelevant matter. And, finally, the judge, if he is sitting with out a jury, rarely takes a case under advise ment or, as is said here, " reserves judgment." He proceeds at once to decide the matter, and in such a way that there is not, in four cases out of six, any appeal from his deci sion. A good deal of the success which attends the judges' labors comes from the fact that they are determined to be judges in the strictest sense of the word, and not merely presiding officers in courts of law to preserve order between wrangling counsel. How far they carry the function of a judge as a judicial determinor of law and facts could hardly be realized by Americans. In the county courts it is no unusual thing when a woman, for example, is sued by a dress maker and the defense is that the dress does not fit, for the judge to require the defend ant to retire, put on the dress and reappear in the witness box in the disputed garment in order that he may see for himself what truth there is in the contention. It is perhaps largely on account of the way justice is meted out in this homely fashion that the county courts are becoming more and more popular every year.
STUFF GOWN.
