FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   >>  
contributory negligence and cannot recover." The question is undoubtedly a poser. The judge is evidently worried; if he make a wrong guess and says "yes" or "no" at this juncture, the appellate court may say: "Error, judgment reversed, new trial ordered." What happens is that the judge takes a chance. The lawyer says, "I refer you to 169 New York Court of Appeals Reports, page 492; in the case of Jones _vs._ Metropolitan, the court there said that the refusal to so charge was reversible error." The judge looks wise and finally says, "yes." There is a little playing of politics in this; he has possibly been thinking how the jury are going to decide and realizing that what he charges won't make any difference, he plays safe by charging what the losing side wants. These requests to charge may go back and forth indefinitely with rulings and exceptions. Either lawyer may except to a portion of the judge's charge, thus serving notice upon him that unless he hurry up and change it he may be reversed on appeal. That is the reason why the charge of the judge has not a great effect. He has to be too careful. In New York State the judge can not say what he thinks about the case. In other words, the charge must be indefinite. In England and the Federal courts in this country, the judge may legally express his opinion as to how the case should be decided, but that is as far as he can go. The distinction is a relic of the old days of the jury system when the judges would imprison the jury until they found as was wanted. Now the judge may only express a preference and the jury may do as they please. In some courts the democratic idea of the independence of the juryman goes to the extent of not allowing the judge to say anything specific. The result is that the jury are confused. They are usually of so independent a nature that the judge's charge would not greatly influence them. The clients sit by utterly confounded; they hear the judge wisely say, "I think perhaps yes, but on the whole it may be no," and when he is through, not understanding as much as the jury, they think the judge's charge is very fair. Having said little of import it probably is. The continental method is so entirely different, that it is shocking. In the courts in France the judge practically says for his charge, "You've heard the evidence, now go on out and do what's right." This again illustrates the difference between the old and the new ideas of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   >>  



Top keywords:

charge

 

courts

 

express

 

reversed

 

difference

 

lawyer

 

wanted

 

independence

 
juryman
 

democratic


preference
 

distinction

 

Federal

 
country
 

legally

 
England
 
indefinite
 

opinion

 

system

 

judges


imprison

 

decided

 
shocking
 

France

 
practically
 

method

 

continental

 

Having

 
import
 

illustrates


evidence

 

independent

 

nature

 

greatly

 

confused

 

result

 

extent

 

allowing

 
specific
 
influence

understanding

 

wisely

 

clients

 

utterly

 

confounded

 

serving

 

Reports

 

Appeals

 

chance

 

Metropolitan