Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/631

THE GREEN BAG absurd to depart from the plain grammatical "A strong and independent tribunal would sense of the words and apply them "to a act in precisely the same manner whether there person who in every point of the law but that was agitation or not. It would not yield to of succession to property and title is regarded clamor, but neither would it refrain from as the child of his actual parents." "The doing justice because it might be charged -with custom or practice of a government depart yielding to clamor; and if the agitators threw ment, though ancient, is no criterion for the any fresh light on the subject it would wel interpretation of the law, and we may more come that light irrespective of the quarter properly say, on the other hand, that every from which it came. But the Criminal De action of official bodies should always be partment of the Home Office is essentially a closely scrutinized, especially when it takes weak tribunal and, like most weak bodies, it the form of imposing a penalty upon any follows the line of least resistance. The min particular class." Since the common law is imum of trouble and responsibility appears to more stringent than any other in determining be the great object at which it aims; and, as legitimacy, the opinion of Blackstone should less trouble and less responsibility is involved be heeded that "any other distinction but in an affirmance than in a reversal, the ten that of not inheriting which civil policy ren dency to affirm everything will soon manifest ders necessary would be odious, unjust, and itself, more especially as no reasons for affir mance are required. ' The Home Secretary sees cruel in the last degree." no reason to interfere ' is -the only announce ment made — an announcement which in the PLEADING. "Demurrers to Oral Plead literal sense is not true; for the reasons for ings," Anonymous, Bench and Bar (V. xi, interference are often clear and manifest." P- 55)PROCEDURE (Modern English). A criti cism of "Some Evils of the Judicature Acts," PRACTICE. " Examination of Party before by Anthony Pulbrook in the August Law Trial," by D. H. Fernandez, Oklahoma Law Magazine and Review (V. xxx, p. 450) asserts Journal (V. iv. p. i). that the main cause of the passage of this legislation was a feeling that law and equity PROCEDURE (Criminal. Appeals. Beck should in some manner be fused so that one Case). An author who styles himself "Ap Court might have jurisdiction to grant what pellant" contributes to the August Law was termed substantial justice. "Great expectations were indulged in that Magazine and Review (V. xxx, p. 399) a new criticism of the English system of reviews by the passing of these acts would not only the Home Office of criminal cases suggested by reduce the cost of a lawsuit, but bring justice the now famous Beck case and the report of to a poor man's door in such a manner as the Beck Commission, entitled "The Home would place him on an equal footing with his Office and Criminal Appeals." The author more wealthy opponent. The Judicature Acts objects to the suggestion of strengthening the having now been in operation for thirty years, legal element in the Home Office as a remedy a sufficient period of time has elapsed to form and insists that the real difficulty is in the fact a judgment whether they have effected the that the reviewing body is not an independent object anticipated." The author feels that these expectations tribunal, and that it purports to act in the "interest of mercy rather than of justice. have not been realized since a judge adminis Moreover, their decisions could hardly have tering what is called substantial justice is more authority so long as the grounds of them more effectively influenced by the more plau are not stated, and the policy of secrecy is sible advocate whom wealth can more easily maintained. Any open tribunal is pretty obtain. He finds a great increase in the ex certain in time to become better than any pense of litigation not only for plaintiffs, but secret one, because it is so much more open to for defendants who do not '.contest liability, and for bankrupts. Much of this expense amendment."