AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Judiciary Committee reported on the bill [H. R. 303] in relation to homesteads, recommending its passage with amendments.
The report was concurred in, the bill was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
FENCING RAILROADS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be Mr. Faucher's bill [H. R. 148] relating to the construction of fences, gates, farm crossings, cattle-guards, etc. The bill was read the third time.
Mr. FANCHER--The provisions of this bill are generally known. Nearly every State has a similar statute. The bill requires Railroad Companies to fence their right-of-way within six months after the taking effect of this act, or six month after the construction of a new road or part of a road. The fence is required to be built so it will turn all stock, except hogs. In another section it provides that on failure of the Company to construct such fence, any party sustaining damages shall recover, in additio to the damages, $25. In my judgment that is the only way to reach the Railroad Companies. It is my experience that it is one of the most difficult things to collect a claim against a Railroad Company, especially if page: 80[View Page 80] the judgment is for stock killed. I deem it a good bill and think it ought to pass.
Mr. RYAN--From my own personal knowledge of the operations of railroads, I think this measure ought to pass. Railroads running through the County where I live kill people's stock, and there has been no remedy, as the road changed hands so often that it was hard to tell who the road belonged to. This bill merely provides that a fence shall be built to keep stock off the line of the railroad. The same rule should be applied to railroads as to individuals--that is, not to inflict injury to the property of others; and this bill will accomplish this result.
Mr. COTTON favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. COLE said: "The bill is a good one. It obviates the prevailing difficulty of collecting damages for stock killed upon railroad lines. The present law is not adequate, because a person does not succeed in collecting the full value of the stock killed. This bill provides against relief of Railroad Companies changing ownership.
Mr. GIBSON was opposed to the bill because it would be a consumption of the timber of the country. He considered it a very serious objection.
Mr. MOODY--I hope the bill will pass, though it is not such a bill as I desired and hoped might be passed. I desire that the Railread Company also be required to fence against hogs, and I went before the Committee and urged this amendment to the bill, but the Committee regarded the amendment fatal to the passage of the bill and refused to amend it. I hope the bill will pass.
The bill passed by yeas, 56; nays, 15.
THE CIVIL CODE.
The SPEAKER announced the regular order to be the consideration of the bill [S 271] concerning proceedings in civil cases.
The reading of the bill was commenced by section, and amendments offered as each section was read.
Mr. MOODY moved to amend Section 38, Subdivision 6, by inserting after the word "record," the words, "Except as in this section hereinafter specfied." Also, by adding at the close of line "seven" the words, "Upon judgment of Courts of Record which have been rendered in connection with a foreclosure of a mortgage upon real estate within six years from the time of such judgment."
Mr. MOODY--That simply applies where there are foreclosures of mortgages where parties have sold the real estate, receiving nearly all of their money, and still hold their judgment over against the party, who will continue to hold that judgment over for twenty years. It seems to me that where parties have had a mortgage on property and foreclosed the same, and were paid nearly all of the amount due, it ought to be closed up within this time--six years. It does not seem right to hold the judgment over a mortgage when the mortgagee holds the property--to keep this judgment hanging over him for twenty years. Sii years is a sufficient time to hold that judgment.
On motion by Mr. McINTOSCH, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. CARTER moved to amend Section 38 by striking out the words in line 19, "hereafter executed," and insert in lieu "judgments of a Court of Record;" also by striking out of lines 20 and 21 the words "of judgments of Courts of Record."
Mr. CARTER--This amendment applies only to promissory notes, bills of exchange and other written contracts for the payment of money hereafter executed. There are a great many notes and contracts now in existence. If this law repeals the law upon that subject there will be no limitation on the contracts now in existence. Therefore I move to strike out the words "hereafter executed." I see no reason why there should be a distinction between a judgment of the Court of Record and promissory notes. For those reasons I want the words out.
The amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. COLE moved to strike out subdivisions 5 and 6 of the same section, and insert the following: "Upon promissory notes, bills of exchange and other written contracts, judgments of Courts of Record, and for the recovery of real estate, within twenty years." He said: This amendment I offer is exactly in the same shape it was when it came from the Revision Committee. I think it is a proper one--that twenty years is not too long a time within which to recover such property.
Mr. STEWART considered twenty years too long a time for such claims to run. He wanted the section to remain as it is, requiring the action to be brought within ten years on this class of claims.
Mr. CARTER said: I think ten years is long enough. There is only one State in the Union which extends the time beyond that. Kentucky extends it to fifteen years. I do not see the justice in saying that citizens of all the States around us shall have the right, if they have a claim against a citizen of this State, to hold it without action for twenty years and when we hold a claim against one of their citizens we must bring that action from between six and ten years.
Mr. KENNER was opposed to the amendment.
The amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. LINSDAY moved to amend Section 255 by adding: "When the application is based upon the causes mentioned in the third subdivision of said section the granting of a change, or refusing the same, shall be in the discretion of the Judge."
Mr. LINSDAY said: "I think that this change ought to be made. The parties to a suit should not be allowed to take change of venue at their pleasure, but the Court should have some discretion in the matter."
Mr. BENHAM thought the section should be left as it is. If a man is willing to go into Court and swear that he can not have justice in the Court, that should satisfy the Court that the cause ought to be transferred.
Mr. STEWART thought the change would work to the detriment of the people rather than improve the state of affairs in that direction. He was in favor of the existing law in that respect.
Mr. LINSDAY--In civil cases we all know that there is scarcely at any time any excitement existing in the community but what the man who has the most money and can carry his case out of the County defeats the man who has no money to pay for his witnesses, thus causing the poor man to suffer. I say it ought to be left to the discretion of the Court whether or not there is a real cause for a change of venue.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--I hope the amendment will prevail. The Constitution says: "Justice shall be administered speedly and without delay." There is no lawyer here who has knowledge of practice but what knows that a change of venue is merely to delay cases. Persons practice law all over this State who delay causes as long as they can by filing affidavits. When they get into another Court they are entitled to one more change. Cases involving real estate are changed to Courts where they have not a sufficient amount of evidence, and the case is continued from year to year simply for the purpose of, probably, depriving the lawful owner of the use of his property. I can see no reason why these trials on the rights of property should be so transferred. I hope the amendment will prevail so as to put an end to this practice of delaying causes.
Mr. KENNER--The Constitution also says that justice shall be administered impartially, as well as speedily. If a man does not want a Judge to try his case, he had not ought to try it. I have known of many cases in which you could no more get justice than you could fly. Judges are men like everybody else, and we should not put too much within their grasp. In many cases this page: 81[View Page 81] change of venue works detrimental, but in the majority of cases it is right.
Mr. RYAN was in favor of the amendment, for the reason that causes are greatly delayed under the present law upon that subject; also, that it is no material help towards securing impartial justice in the majority of cases.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. COTTON moved to amend Section 292, line one, by inserting the word "or affirm" after the word "swear." He said there were many people who would not swear. This amendment would meet their cases.
The amendment was adopted.
Then the House adjourned.
