THE CIVIL CODE.
On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK it was ordered that the bill [S. 271], concerning procedure in civil cases, be considered till noon.
The question pending at the adjournment yesterday being an amendment to Section 1, acts of 1879, proposing to strike out the proviso allowing the Court to give other instructions at the close of the argument--
Mr. MENZIES did not think the amendment would be productive of any good. If upon examination of the law during the trial the Court may think the instructions already given ought to be modified, restricted or amplified, he should have the right to do so.
Mr. GRUBBS submitted additional reasons why the amendment should not prevail.
Mr. VIEHE also objected to the amendment. He saw no reason why the Court should not give additional instructions.
Mr. BELL thought it would be well to limit the proviso.
Mr. VIEHE: Undoubtedly the aim of the law was to advise attorneys of the view of the Court. Counsel should have the opportunity to draw the fire of the Court and the Court should be permitted, also to draw the fire of the attorneys. This drawing of fire should work both ways.
Mr. VOYLES did not feel very comfortable in finding himself in antagonism to the lawyers who have already avanced objection to his amendment. If wrong, he was certainly in earnest in beliving the amendment would prove a valuable correction of the present practice. The Court has ample opportunity to make up the instructions correctly. The purpose of the statute is to form a legal basis upon which the trial should be based. The attorneys start out with that understanding, but this proviso allows the props to be knocked out. The basis should be firmly fixed before the argument is heard. The amendment might provide if the Court desires to modify or add new matter; the Court may stay the argument, and after submitting the new matter let the argument be resumed under some fair rules.
Mr. BROWN, upon reflection, could not favor the amendment. We must treat Judges as being impartial in the discharge of their duties, and if the Court thinks the ends of justice would be promoted by making modifications in charges, that right ought to be given. A skilled advocate might defeat the ends of justice in many cases if the Court had not the right to lay down the law to the Jury after the argument is concluded.
Mr. FOSTER was inclined to think the section ought to stand as it is.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WILSON moved to insert after the word "instructions" in the proviso, these words: "prepared by the Court or Counsel."
Mr. MENZIES believed the attorney would be in the dark acting under the propose amendment.
Mr. WILSON could not see how their action would be more obscure under his amendment than under the existing statute.
Mr. BELL referred to an instance where he thought the amendment would act disadvantageously.
Mr. WILSON had never known of such a case. He was satisfied it would prove beneficial to clients. If it necessitates delay, delay should be had in order to facilitate justice. Attorneys are about as likely to get at the true law in the case as the Court, who possibly has not considered the propositions as carefully as counsel has, and fre- page: 199[View Page 199] quently frames the charge without careful and studied consideration.
The amendment was rejected by--yeas, 10; nays, 34.
Mr. BROWN moved to amend so as to leave the same discretion as the law now does, but require the Court to submit instructions upon applcationof either party.
Mr. LANGDON understood everything implied in this amendment is already provided for in existing laws.
The amendment was agreed to by yeas, 31; nays, 8.
And then came the recess till 2 o'clock.
