Substantial Justice

The Federal District judges of the U. S. went back to school last winter. So did a great many U. S. lawyers. For by an order of Congress issued in 1934, the Supreme Court of the U. S. had rewritten the rules under which the grave game of civil justice shall be played in the Federal District Courts. Last December, Chief Justice Hughes reported the new rules (with Justice Brandeis dissenting) to the Attorney General, who in January reported them to Congress, which published them. Last week they became effective. Lawyers agreed with Attorney General Cummings when he described them as "the most striking advance in the administration of justice in half a century." The new rules reminded card-playing legalists of the changes that came over bridge when it went from auction into contract.

"Substantial justice" is the desideratum which the new rules (86 of them) aim to speed and attain. New in the U. S. (but familiar in England) is a provision for pre-trial hearings,/- wherein a judge (who later is not the trial judge) calls before him the lawyers for both sides of a civil suit, determines with them the real issues involved, weeds out unessential witnesses, evidence and testimony, shortcuts the lawyers' technical maneuvers, (demurrers, motions to strike out, etc., etc.), thus saves time for the trial judge, jury and clients. The new rules also provide:

P: A loser in court shall not be granted a new trial on account of an error unless such error actually affected the case's outcome.

P: Each side may obtain depositions from the other (instead of only from witnesses).

P: If both sides agree, a case may be heard by less than twelve jurors.

/- Pre-trial hearings were first introduced in the U. S. in 1932 by Circuit Court Judge Joseph A. Moynihan of Michigan.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.