Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/255



Review of Periodicals Procedure. "Some Principles of Proce dural Reform." By Prof. Roscoe Pound, Read before the Chicago Law Club, December

3, 1909.

4 Illinois Law Review 388 (Jan),

491 (Feb). In the course of a singularly enlightening lcgil'scussion the author proposes these princi es:— "I. It should be for the court, in its dis cretion, not the

arties, to vindicate rules of

procedure inten ed solely to provide for the orderly dispatch of business, saving of public time, and maintenance of the di nity of tri bunals; and such discretion shoulg be review able only for abuse. “II. Except as they exist for the saving of public time and maintenance of the dignity of tribunals, so that the parties should not be able to insist as of ti ht u on enforcement of them, rules of procerfure should exist only to secure to all parties a fair opportunity to meet the case against them and a full opportunity to present their own case; and nothin should depend on or be obtainable throug them exce t the securing of such 0 unity. “I I. A practice act shoul deal only with the general features of procedure and pre scribe the general lines to be followed, leaving

237

“VIII. So far as possible, all questions of fact should be disposed of ﬁnally upon one trial." This principle is also elaborated in a series of special propositions. "IX. 0 judgment should be set aside or new trials granted for error as to any matter not involving the substantive law or the facts, that is for error as to any matter of procedure, unless it shall a to the court that the error com laine of has resulted in a mis carriage 0 justice. “X. The trial judge should be permitted to charge the jury orally, to sum up fairly and accurately the evidence upon each side of the issues submitted, and to make fair

comments thereon. “XI. Exceptions should be abolished; it should be enough that due objection was interposed at the time the ruling in question was made. “XII. An ap 1 should be treated as a motion for a re caring or new trial or for vacation or modiﬁcation of the order or judgment complained of, as the cause may re uire, before another tribunal. . . . ‘As a corollary:— “Upon any appeal, in any sort of cause, the court should have full power to make whatever order the whole case and complete justice in accord with substantive law require, with

details to be ﬁxed by rules of court, which the out

remand,

unless

a

new

trial

becomes

courts may change from time to time, as

actual experience of their application and operation dictates. “IV. The function of a judicial record should be to preserve a permanent memorial of what has been done in a cause; the court

should be able at all stages to try the case, not the record, and, except as a record of what

has been done may be necessary to protect substantive rights of parties as the suit progresses, the sole concern of the court with respect to the record should be to see to it that at the termination of the litigation it records the judgment rendered and the causes of action and defenses adjudicated. “V. The oﬁioe of pleadings should be to give notice to the respective parties of the claims, defenses and cross demands asserted

by their adversaries; wherever that oﬁice may be performed suﬁiciently without plead ings, pleadings should be unnecessary, and where pleadin s are required, the pleader should not be eld to state all the legal ele ments of claim, defense or cross demand,

but merely to apprise his adversary fairly of iggat such claim, defense or cross demand is to

.

"VI. No cause, proceedin or appeal should be dismissed, rejected or t rown out solely because brought in or taken to the wrong court or wrong venue, but if there is one where it ma be brought or prosecuted, it should be trans erred thereto and go on there, all prior proceedin 5 being saved. “VII. he equitable principle of complete disposition of the entire controversy between the parties should be extended to its full content and applied to every t of pro ceeding.” To give eﬂect to this principle, ﬁve propositions are suggested.

necessary." “A Comparative Study of English and American Courts." By William N. Gemmill. 4 Illinois Law Review 457 (Feb). "It is my purpose in this paper to make a summary, as brieﬁ as possible, of the courts of England and t eir work, and the courts of the United States in general, and of Illinois and Cook county in particular. . . . “An examination of the judicial statistics of England and Wales, and such investigation of the work of our courts as I have been able to make, has led me to the following conclu sion, namely, that the judges of the English courts do not severall dispose of more work than the judges of II inois or Cook county, but on the contrary each one of our judges tn'es more cases and disposes of more business, and does it more eﬁiciently, with less expense to the litigant and taxpayer, and with less regard for the technicalities of the law than do the judges of England." “Reform of Legal Procedure." By Lynn Helm. 44 American Law Review 69 (Jan.

Feb.). "We do not need. . . more courts or more judges to transact the judicial business of the country, but we need judges better equipped for transacting business under a reformed and better system of legal procedure. We need a revolution of the entire judicial establishment. . . . "A system of appeals whereby only errors so substantial as to raise a presumption of prejudice are to be regarded, does much to expedite the ﬁnal settlement of litigation. . . ." So far as the litigant is concerned, one appeal