CHAPTER VI THE STATE JUDICIARY Function of the Courts.-The legislature enacts the laws, the executive officers enforce them, the courts interpret their meaning and apply them to particular cases. The courts are also the instrumentalities through which the rights guaranteed us by the constitution and the laws are enforced. If your neighbor owes you a debt and refuses to pay, if you make a contract with some one and he refuses to perform the stipulations, if some one injures you in your person or property, in these and countless other instances you must look to the courts for protection or redress. They are the agencies for settling disputes among men, for enforcing contracts, for trying and punishing violations of the law, and for determining what our rights are when they are drawn in dispute. Grades of Courts.—(1) Justice of the Peace.-At the bottom of the judicial system stand the courts of the justices of the peace, which have jurisdiction of civil cases involving small amounts, usually less than $150, and of petty offenses against the laws. On a level with these courts are certain municipal courts in the cities. The justice of the peace is a magistrate of ancient origin, and in reality his court is important since it is to this court that large numbers of persons resort for the settlement of their disputes. Too little attention is given to the choice of the men who fill this im portant office, and the result is that the court of the justice. of the peace has long been and still is the weakest part of our judicial system. Generally there are several justices in every town or township. Usually they are elected by the people, though sometimes they are appointed. One of the sources of the evils connected with the system is that they are paid fees rather than salaries. This system of compensation often leads them to solicit business and sometimes to divide their fees with lawyers who bring cases to them for trial. They not only try petty civil and criminal cases, but they have the power to conduct preliminary examinations into more serious offenses in order to determine whether there is ground for holding the accused for trial. In case the justice thinks the evidence warrants the trial of the offender, he "binds" him over to await the action of the grand jury. (2) County Courts. Next above the court of the justice of the peace is, in some states, the county court, so called because its territorial jurisdiction embraces the entire county. This court has jurisdiction of civil cases involving large amounts and of more serious criminal cases. It also has the right to hear appeals from the justices of the peace. (3) Circuit Courts. Still higher in the judicial organization, in most states, are the courts whose territorial jurisdiction embraces a larger area of the state-usually a group of counties and which are empowered to try any civil or criminal case without reference to the amount in controversy or the character of the offense. They are generally styled circuit courts, because the judge usually travels from county to county holding court in each county in the district or circuit. Sometimes, however, they are called district or superior courts, and in a few states "supreme" courts. GRADES OF COURTS III (4) The Supreme Court. Finally, at the top of the judicial hierarchy is the supreme court, or court of appeals, as it is sometimes called. Unlike the other courts below, its jurisdiction embraces the whole state, and the judges are elected or appointed usually from the state at large. Unlike the other courts, moreover, instead of being held by a single judge, it is held by a bench of judges, the number ranging from three to nine in the different states. It has original jurisdiction in certain cases, but its most important function is that of hearing appeals from the decisions of the lower courts, and of deciding upon the constitutionality of the laws. In cases appealed to it from the lower courts, it has the final word of authority except where a federal question is involved, in which case an appeal may be taken to the United States Supreme Court. Courts of a Special Character. The justice's, circuit, and supreme courts are found in all the states, though sometimes designated by different names. In addition to these, however, we sometimes find other courts of a more or less special character. Probate Courts. Thus in many states there are separate probate courts for the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, for dealing with matters relating to wills and inheritances, and sometimes with matters affecting orphans and minors. They are occasionally called surrogate's or orphans' courts. In many states, however, there are no separate probate courts, the probate business being taken care of by the county court. In certain other states probate courts are separately provided only for the more populous counties. Juvenile Courts.-Frequently in the more populous cities there are also juvenile courts for the trial of youthful offenders. Equity Courts. In a few states the distinction between law and equity is still maintained, and equity jurisdiction is intrusted to a distinct class of courts. Equity had its origin in the practice of the King of England in early times in granting relief to suitors who, owing to the deficiencies of the common law, could not obtain relief through the courts of law. In time all such petitions came to be addressed to an officer who stood very close to the king and who was I called the chancellor. Out of this office there were ultimately evolved the chancery courts which administered justice, not according to the law, but according to a less technical body of rules called equity. Thus there came to be two bodies of rules according to which justice was administered, and two classes of courts through which it was done. The jurisdiction of equity courts included such matters as trusts, accounts, fraud, mistake or accident, and the like. Equity could also prevent wrongs, while law could only punish them.1 Thus a court of equity could command a person to do something for the benefit of an injured person, or restrain him from committing an injury, while a court of law could only award him damages after the injury had been done—a remedy often worthless or inadequate. The English system of equity, like the common law, was transplanted to America, and both are still in force here except in so far as they have been modified by legislative acts. England, however, abolished the separate system of equity courts in 1873, and left the law courts to administer equity wherever it was applicable. Likewise, in the United States, separate equity courts have been done away with in all except five states, leaving the same courts to administer both law and equity. The Judges of Courts.-Qualifications.-Generally no 1 Baldwin, The American Judiciary, p. 133. THE JUDGES OF COURTS 113 qualifications for the judicial office are prescribed by law, except in a few states where it is required that judges shall be lawyers or be "learned in the law." As a matter of fact, however, judges are nearly always lawyers, except in the case of justices of the peace and police magistrates, where extensive knowledge of the law is not essential. Terms of Office. The terms of the judges vary widely among the different states. In the early days of our history, the judges generally held their offices during good behavior or until the attainment of a certain age, usually sixty or seventy years. With the growth of democracy, however, most of the states came to adopt short terms for judicial as well as for other public officials. Only in Massachusetts and Rhode Island do the judges of the highest court now serve practically for life. In New Hampshire they serve until they are 70 years of age. Elsewhere the tenure. varies from two years, in Vermont, to twenty-one years, in Pennsylvania. In Maryland, the tenure is fifteen years; in New York, fourteen; in several, it is twelve, in some nine, in many six. The advantage of a long term is that it enables the judges to acquire experience and renders them less affected by political influence and popular clamor. Methods of Choosing the Judges. In early times the judges were chosen either by the legislature or by the governor. Choice by the legislature was objectionable because it often resulted in selection by political caucuses and in a parceling of the judgeships among the different counties or sections of the state. Appointment by the governor was objectionable to many because it often resulted in the choice of political favorites. Most of the states, therefore, abandoned these methods of choice for popular election, Mississippi in 1832 being the first state to adopt this method. Only in Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massa Govt. U. S.-8 |