I have seen in this State, and the Territory before the State, more contention, more wrangling, at a single term of the District Court in the matter of settling the pleadings, than in the whole time I was practicing before the Illinois Courts. That system-the common law system-as modified by statute is substantially what Judge Turner recommends; and we all know that Judge Turner has had the means of observation and the experience to speak by authority upon this question. And I think the older and abler members of the bar will concur; and that the concensus of the bar is, and, upon further reflection, will be, that our system of pleading and practice needs reform. There are more delays over the settlement of the pleadings and getting the causes at issue than in the trial of the cases. And under this system it is hardly possible to get a case at issue, unless you have one or more false issues. The result of this system of pleading is that a number of issues are entirely ignored in the trial and all subsequent proceedings. I rose simply for the purpose of giving in my testimony for what it is worth in favor of the proposed reform suggested by Judge Turner, and will close now. MR. W. H. THOMPSON:-I think it goes without saying that if the lawyer in active practice has suffered more or less, and generally more, from the grievances that Judge Turner has portrayed in his article, the difficulty with all of us is not so much to describe our suffering as to find some way of alleviating it. I have long ceased to hope anything from the Legislature. I have tried half a dozen times to get a bill through the Legislature that I thought would get rid of a few of these evils- not all of them; I attack one at a time. But the most earnest members of the Legislature would ask me at once, 'Is there any merit in your bill?" And on being informed that there was, they would say, "You need not hope anything from this Legislature." I don't know whether it is really worth while to make any efforts in a matter of that kind. Of course if the members of the bar of the State would go together as a unit, they might accomplish something; just what, no man can say. Now, there is one sort of bill that could probably be passed through the Legislature, and one that would be very effective-but the very statement of it promptly puts two-thirds of the lawyers in condition to put on their battle paint—and that is by a system of penalties. In other words, let the penalties be fixed by the Legislature, not by the Courts; a regular system of costs, that would always be imposed by the law and not by the Court, and there would be an instantaneous change in the pleadings in this State. Every lawyer would be a little more careful than he was before, and he never would present a motion or a demurrer unless he felt very sure that he was going to be sustained. It seems to me that there should be a regular system of penalties regularly imposed against any pleader whose pleading was either attacked successfully or who made an unsuccessful attack upon some other man's pleading. MR. NORMAN BUCK:-I appreciate the paper which Judge Turner has read. I think it calls our attention to some very important matters. I appreciate also the remarks which have just been made. Our laws' delays have sometimes been better than their execution; and the dilatory condition of the administration of the law at the present time is, in a large degree, attributable to the condition of our country. We are in the midst of disaster and ruin. And most people stand very much in need of dilatory motions just now. If this Bar Association would pass a vote requesting the Courts to strictly enforce the penalties against frivolous pleadings, and the Courts would do it, I think that would do away with a great deal of the delays of the law; but I don't know but it would do away with all the homes in the country while we were doing it. It is a question whether we are prepared for that strict administration of the law. It would be a very great relief to the Courts if these penalties could be enforced, but in the meantime a good many people would be without a home to live in. The Court sometimes stands as a mediator between the wolf and the lamb, and I admit that the lamb has my sympathy very often. The grievance, as Judge Turner has portrayed it, is very great, and we need to have something done. For myself, I would like to see a motion passed and adopted by this body asking the Courts in mercy to administer the fines and penalties for frivolous pleadings, and I think that would do away with a great many of them, as Mr. Thompson has suggested. I think, when we come to a demurrer, it ought to be so drawn as to dispose of the case. But all attorneys are not able to draw pleadings of that kind some have not the experience, and we must administer the law to do justice, according to the condition of the country. But I think the time is come when we should do something to do away with these frivolous pleadings. MR. B. W. COINER:-I have never before been in a case where the lawyers were all on one side. I presume, in a measure, we all agree with Judge Turner, and, in a measure, many of us, no doubt, disagree with him. He has put the case strongly, as he always does, and shown the evil in its worst form. As he has described it, the matter of dilatory motions and demurrers under our practice and procedure is a good deal worse than we meet in the ordinary practice; and I presume that even Judge Turner, with all his practice, has never experienced all of these difficulties in any one suit. I believe, in general, the laws relating to pleadings in Washington are plain and simple. The law prescribes no particular form of action but a civil action. You state your case in ordinary language, plainly and concisely as you can; and, if you have done so, and the facts as alleged state a cause of action, you are in Court. Where we are at fault most in Washington is in the matter of practice. At almost every session of the Legislature there is a new practice act passed. Now, I do not believe in attempting to remedy the evil by putting on patchwork all over. That is what we have been doing. We have patched our practice act until it has become a mass of patchwork. I believe that the Legislature of the State of Washington can be depended upon to do what is reasonable. And if the State Bar Association should agree upon a plan, of which they will say to the State Legislature, "If you will carry out this plan, we say to you, as patriots, as citizens, as men who want to do the best they are able to do for the benefit of the people of the whole State, we will uphold you," they will pass it. MR. S. R. STERN: I do not believe the disease is as bad as Judge Turner has stated. I think the Judge must have had occasion to meet in the court-room that Spokane attorney who had a list of twenty-two dilatory motions, and who always went through the list in each case. I believe the penalty system will aid in remedying the defect. It will certainly cause attorneys to be more careful. MR. FRANK H. GRAVES:—I think the trouble is, no particular standard by which to regulate pleadings. In drawing a complaint we endeavor to put in a plenty and then let it go. I believe that no pleadings of merit can be more simple than the actions laid down by Chitty. I believe the Code system should be abolished. MR. J. P. HoYT:-I indorse all that Mr. Graves has said on the subject of pleading. According to my view, the forms of practice laid down by Chitty are pretty nearly perfect. I would like to see those forms adopted here, but I don't suppose that will ever be. Mr. Stern moved that the subject-matter of Judge Turner's paper be referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform, to report to the Association at its next meeting the reforms needed, as there will be another meeting of this body before the next session of the Legislature. Mr. Graves moved to amend by referring it to a special committee of three, two of whom should be Judge Turner and Judge Thompson. Upon this question there was quite a lengthy discussion participated in by Messrs. E. W. Taylor, J. E. Fenton, T. C. Griffitts and B. W. Coiner, and several amendments proposed, but the original motion carried. THE PRESIDENT:-I will state that on tomorrow's program the address of Judson Applegate, on Corporations, will be omitted, and, in its stead, we will have the address of Hon. C. H. Hanford, on Jurisdiction of American Courts, State and Federal. On motion, Association adjourned till 10 A. M. tomorrow. N. S. PORTER, Secretary. SECOND DAY. SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, July 18th, 1895. Association met pursuant to adjournment, President Forster in the chair. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. Hon. Harold Preston, of Executive Committee, submitted the following report, which was, on motion of Mr. J. P. Hoyt, adopted : SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, July 18th, 1895. To the Washington State Bar Association: The Executive Committee, having examined the reports of the Secretary and Treasurer, with the accompanying vouchers, recommend their approval. CHARLES S. FOGG, N. S. PORTER, HAROLD PRESTON, Of the Executive Committee. Hon. John P. Hoyt, Chairman of Special Committee, submitted the following report, which was, on motion of Mr. Porter, adopted: SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, July 18th, 1895. To the Washington State Bar Association: The undersigned, your Committee to whom was referred the address of the President of this Association, delivered yesterday, with directions to segregate the various subject-matters of said address, and refer the same to appropriate Standing Committees, does now report that it has examined said address and makes the following references, if it has power to refer ; otherwise, it recommends that reference be made, of all that portion of said address as treats of — 1. Amendments to the Code, to the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure. 2. Reform in the Transfer and Registration of Land Titles, to the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform. |