THE APPLICABILITY OF ENGLISH METHODS High Court of Justice, is exceedingly valu able, and affords a practical way to avoid a very large amount of unnecessary labor and delay. Third. — Strict application of technical rules by Appellate tribunals, and granting of new trials for comparatively trivial errors upon questions of evidence, when the merits are in no wise involved, add greatly to the expense of litigation. The rule in equity causes tends much more to advance the interests of litigants in that class of cases. It is well settled on the trial of equity causes that where the court is of opinion that the evidence improperly admitted or excluded, would not, or should not, have changed the result, a new trial will not be granted. In trials before a jury, however, the ten dency is to set aside a verdict, and allow a new trial by reason of comparatively trivial or immaterial errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence. It would not be wise, were it possible, to take from the Appellate tribunals the authority to grant new trials for error in receiving or reject ing evidence, but it certainly would be reasonable to enact by statute, and for the courts to follow in letter and spirit, a rule to the effect that a new trial should not be granted, unless in the opinion of the Appel late Tribunal, the evidence received or rejected would, if proper ruling were made, probably bring about a different result. While errors, with reference to the admis sion of evidence, are the most frequent
279
source of new trials granted for reasons not involving the merits, many cases arise where a new trial is allowed upon purely formal grounds, or for technical reasons, when the court is abundantly satisfied that substantial justice has been done. In such cases the court should be authorized, if the power is lacking under the present methods of procedure, to affirm the judgment, or modify it to such an extent as the Appellate Tribunal may deem proper. These considerations by no means cover the entire field in which reform in procedure should be had with a view to facilitating the administration of justice, but they appear to be remedies which can be most readily applied. If the practice should grow up, by reason of a well-settled senti ment on the part of the Bench and the Bar, that causes be tried by lawyers specially trained and adapted to that line of business; if the procedure should be so revised as to furnish litigants before trial such informa tion as is most necessary and desirable to fairly enable them to meet the questions raised by their opponents; and if new trials were granted only when deemed necessary by the Appellate tribunals, in the interests of justice; substantially little reason would remain for complaint with regard to the law's delays in those jurisdictions where a sufficient number of judges is provided for the despatch of legal business. J. NEWTON FIERO. ALBANY, N. Y., April, 1905.
