Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/14

 4

The Green Bag

A right to carry law questions to a

higher court could be preserved without any great inconvenience; the existing

appeal system, which arbitrarily wipes out the entire result below, is what ought to be abolished.

In criminal cases two methods are suggested. There are three stages at which a case may conceivably be re moved to a higher court having a jury, in order to preserve the constitutional right to a jury trial; (1) before trial, (2) after ﬁnding of guilty, (3) after sen tence. The existing appeal system per mits the removal to be claimed at the third stage. It would seem much better to follow the analogy of the plan just suggested for civil cases, and to require the removal to be claimed at the ﬁrst stage, or else to require it at the second stage. If a defendant does not remove the case at the required time, the sen

tence of the lower court ought to be ﬁnal unless error of law is shown. It seems clear, at least, that a defendant who is satisﬁed with a ﬁnding of guilty

ought not to be allowed to wipe out the

a more favorable result, and to appeal, merely on the question of sentence, to the district attorney and to a court

having less knowledge of local condi tions. In the great majority of appeal cases there is no question as to the guilt, and the defendant ought not to be allowed to put oﬁ' the day of reckoning while he appeals to several courts in succession upon a question of discretion,

in the hope of ﬁnding some court or prosecuting ofﬁcer to his liking.

The

mere fact that the higher court is pre sumed to be superior in quality as well as in position is no argument for taking

all ﬁnality out of the rulings of lower courts; otherwise the business of no court ought to ﬁnd a resting place short of the United States Supreme Court.

A sound public policy seems to re quire that the action of lower courts should be made eﬁ'ective within their jurisdiction, however narrow that juris

diction may be.

The legislative ten

dency in recent years to extend their nominal jurisdiction, preserving, how ever, the power of parties arbitrarily to

sentence of the court having the best

annul all their judicial acts by appeal,

knowledge of the needs of the commun— ity, if he thinks he has a chance to get

encourages disrespect for legal proceed

ings and for the law itself.1

The Bar and the Young Man By SHEARON BONNER, MEMBER OF THE FACULTY OF THE DALLAS (TEXAS) LAW SCHOOL, AND or THE TEXAS BAR

GREAT deal has been written for the beneﬁt of the young lawyer; but very little, I think, for the beneﬁt of the young man who is aspiring to the bar. Therefore, I shall devote the larger part of this article to what the young man who expects to apply for admission to the bar ought to do towards pre

paring himself for that ordeal.

The

second part I shall devote to the attitude I think the bar ought to take toward the young man who is seeking

entrance. 1The views of the writer are more full stated in a pamphlet entitled, “The Failure of t e A
 * 11

System," published by the Massachusetts nson Association, Pemberton Square, Boston.