Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/325

 306

THE GREEN BAG

called "Agrees," but, except for their ex perience and prestige, they have no claim on the litigant such as have the members of the bars pleading before the other courts of France. Under the system of the Tri bunal, the inexperience of a large portion of those practising before it may be said to hasten >rather than to retard a decision in their respective cases. 4. The French law of evidence differs widely from the English system. The French code knows nothing of the rules of materiality, relevancy, and competency, so dear to the heart of the English or American trial-lawyer. Any evidence offered is re ceived and considered according to the weight to which it is entitled in the opinion of the judge. As a result the delays inci dent to the introduction of evidence under the English system, the laying of proper foundations, the hearing and weighing of objections, cross-examination, etc., are ob viated. And whatever may be said of the effect on the system as a science or the re sults from the standpoint of logic and jus tice, it cannot be denied that the French rules of evidence, which, to the American lawyer, appear conspicuous chiefly by reason of their absence, greatly expedite the work of the courts in disposing of the causes on their dockets. Moreover, excepting in crim inal cases, cases in which the amount in con troversy does not exceed 150 francs and where directed by the court in special cases, there is in the French courts no oral evi dence. Letters and other documentary evi dence are received and considered without being sworn and ordinarily without any form of legalization. Here again the only test of materiality is the view of their worth existing in the mind of the judge. 5. The doctrine of Stare decisis is un known to French law. To render judg ment by way of general and settled decis ions is expressly forbidden by law.1 While decisions may be and frequently are cited for their logic and persuasive force, 1 Code Civile, Art. 5.

yet needless to say much of the time which would otherwise be consumed in the pe rusal of briefs and the consideration of pre cedents is saved to the courts by this pro vision. A trial in a French court usually consists, therefore, merely in a reading of the correspondence and other documents submitted by the parties and the hearing of the arguments of counsel, directed chiefly to the elucidation of the facts in evidence. In difficult cases, and cases involving accounts, an expert may be asked for his advice (avis) or one or three Arbitres nominated by the court, either upon its own initiative or at the request of the parties. The office of an Arbitre is analogous to that of a referee "to hear and determine the issues" under the American system. The Arbitre, however, is an official of the court, from a list of which selections are made by the judges upon occasion. The Arbitre first attempts to effect a compromise between the parties, failing in which he examines the evidence and files a report with the Greffier or clerk of the court. His report is not binding on the judge. An argument is usually had by the parties or their representatives before a Juge en Dclibere upon the question of con firming the report, after which judgment is rendered. A party considering himself ag grieved may appeal to the Tribunal Civil, provided the amount in question exceeds the sum of 1500 francs. In case of judg ment by default a notice may be served stating that the losing party makes Oppo sition to the judgment. The effect of such Opposition is to bring the case again before the same judge for trial. Before ex ecution the judgment must be registered and notified or "signified" to the debtor by the Huissier; registration fees must be paid, varying according to the amount and nature of the judgment. By a proper application in the Assignation the plaintiff may ob tain an Execution provisoire, which means that there shall be no stay of execu tion by reason of appeal.1 In such case the 1 Codede Procedure Civile, Art 439.