THE APPLICABILITY OF ENGLISH METHODS There is too much of the element of chance in the verdict of a jury. The facts are the most important elements in the trial of a cause, and to allow these facts to be deter mined finally by twelve men not versed in the law, and who are sometimes actually incapable of understanding the testimony, is a grave mistake. By allowing the Appel late Court to correct unjust verdicts as well as errors of law, the speedy disposition of causes would not only be promoted, but a greater degree of justice would be insured and more confidence reposed in the deter minations of our tribunals.
287
The failure of our courts to dispose of business promptly is certainly a grave evil. It is one which can be corrected. The success of England in this particular should encourage us to renewed effort. When we do accomplish some satisfactory results in the "Speedy Trial of Causes," then may we appeal with greater confidence and respect to the, "Sovereign Law, that State's collected will, O'er throne and globes elate sits Empress, Crowning good, repressing ill." HUNTER A. GIBBES. COLUMBIA, S. C., April, 1905.
NEW JERSEY The rapid despatch of business in the English courts seems from Mr. Crane's account to be due chiefly to the excellence of the judges and the excellence of the Bar. The judges appear to be selected without regard to local geographical considerations, or to political exigencies, which so often in this country debars the best lawyers from promotion to the Bench. The Bar is com posed of more thoroughly trained men than has hitherto been the case in this country, speaking generally. Everyone is aware of the fact that with a skilled judge to direct the trial, and skilled lawyers to conduct it, much time is saved, and the evidence and arguments are directed to the real point in •dispute. The system of pleading at com mon law had this great merit — that counsel had to understand their case before going into court, the question to be decided was narrowed, and time thereby saved. The objections to this system are obviated in our practice in New Jersey by the great liberty of amendments and the control over the pleadings permitted to the court. Ap parently the English system approximates
to oral pleading under the direction of a master. Either system prevents vexatious delays growing out of appeals on questions not vital to the case. The fact that there are no bills of exceptions doubtless prevents many appeals on the admission or rejec tion of evidence, where this ruling is not really injurious; this same result can be substantially reached under our practice in the conduct of the trial by competent judges. Reversals for error in the admission or re jection of evidence ought to be, and I think are, infrequent. The practice of oral argument and prompt decision is also admirable. Much time is wasted in the preparation of long "briefs," and the citation of numberless cases which no judge can possibly examine, most of which are either not authoritative or are irrelevant to the real point involved; and much time is wasted by counsel in reading to the court briefs, when a mere statement of the legal point involved is sufficient. FRANCIS J. SWAYZE. NEWARK, N. J., April, 1905.
ILLINOIS Mr. Crane's article shows in a striking manner the superiority of the English rules and methods of practice over our own. It
shows also that our brethren across the seas are much more "practical" and successful in bringing about desired results than we
