FOREWORD This volume is an exact photo-reproduction of an original copy of The Denver Bar Association RECORD Volume 2 1925 This reprint is offered to enable Law Libraries to complete their collection of legal periodicals. The reproduction follows the original in every detail, and no attempt was made to correct errors and defects in typography. Buffalo, N. Y. DENNIS & CO., Inc. THE DENVER BAR ASSOCIATION RECORD PUBLISHED MONTHLY VOL. II DENVER, JANUARY, 1925 No. 1 Denver Bar Association Meeting Saturday, January 24, 1925 Albany Hotel, 12:15 Program: The Hon. Henry Edward Manning Wilbur F. Denious Guests: All lawyers in Colorado have been invited. Read this copy of the Bar Record It contains interesting articles by Justice The Denver Bar Association Record OFFICERS .President First Vice-President Stanley T. Wallbank.. Published by The Denver Bar Association and devoted to the interests of that Association. Office, 718 Symes Bldg., Denver, Colo. Vol. II Denver, Jan., 1924 No. 1 NEW JUDGES WELCOME The Denver Bar Association extends to the newly installed District Court Judges its best wishes for the successful administration of their respective courts. Some of those elected were not the choice of our Association, but there is no rancor or bitterness left over our partial defeat. Justice is the one thing we are all striving for and if all else is forgotten, and this kept forever in mind, all will be well. All our Judges know that they can call on our Association, or any of its members or committees, for assistance in any of the matters requiring attention. According to our by-laws, Judges Starkweather, Calvert, Sackman, Bray, Butler, Dunklee and Moore now become Honorary Members of our Association, with all the rights and privileges of Honored Members. Chief Justice Wm. H. Taft says: In a letter sent to Omar E. Garwood, in response to a letter of inquiry sent by Garwood to the Judge, wherein Omar asked him if he had stated "That the administration of criminal law in the United States is a disgrace to civilization." Judge Taft replied, under date of December 6, 1924: "My recollection is that I made such a statement as that to which you refer, in commenting on the administration of the criminal law, in a commencement address at the Yale Law School when I was Secretary of War. It must have been in 1905 or 1906." MEMORIAL TABLET By Jacob V. Schaetzel, Secretary One would have thought that we were still in the war to have heard the bombardment of letters, telephone and personal calls which followed after the unveiling of the memorial tablet dedicated to the Denver lawyers who had served in the Great War. If we hadn't known better, one would have thought that the list of those whose names appeared had never before been published, when as a matter of fact not less than seven distinct and individual notices with names appearing thereon were published within the past five years. At one time the entire list appeared in the Daily Journal. The original idea was to list only those men who were practicing law in Denver on the day of their enlistment. Then it was enlarged to include residents of Denver actually attending law schocl on the day of enlistment. Men engaged in the Service of the United States-Army, Navy or Marines were only included. Those serving in the Y. M. C. A., relief work or otherwise, were not included on the tablet. Following is a list of names of those omitted, and whose names will appear on a supplemental tablet. If your name or that of your friend has been omitted from the bronze tablet and this list, please communicate, IN WRITING, to Mary F. Lathrop, Equitable Building, Denver. Stephen R. Curtis. Allen Moore. Frederick H. Randall. Blaine W. Wallace. Ross F. Wilkins. LAWYERS IN LEGISLATURE ATTENTION "I see there's some talk of having the people vote at the next state election upon the question of abolishing capital punishment. Would you vote to abolish it? Fogie: "No, sir; capital punishment was good enough for my ancestors, and it's good enough for me."-Washington Star. The Present English System of Pleading By John H. Denison, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Colorado I do not remember seeing or hearing a public statement which showed, concretely, that is with illustration or example, what the present English system of pleading is like. The bar of this state cannot intelligently decide whether the adoption of any po.tion of it is desirable until they know somewhat more of what it really is. I have owned for a dozen years a copy of "The Annual Practice," a book in common use in England, corresponding roughly to our annotated code. I never heard of another copy in Colorado and I believe there is none. No one beside myself ever read this copy, so far as I can remember, except Judge Butler of the District Court; so its revelations will be novel if not otherwise interesting. There are two opposite theories as to the statement of a cause of action or defense. One is the ostensible theory of our Code of Civil Procedure, i. e., that the pleader should state in his own ordinary concise language the material facts which constitute his cause of action or defense; the other is that every cause of action or defense is capable of statement in a prescribed form, and, for reasons of expediency, should be thus stated. A little thought shows that there is logically no middle ground between these two theories, though in practice, in any system, they are often used together. The belief that actuated the proponents of the code was that it would do away with the outworn technical itles of the common law system, and their belief was justified by the event; but what they did not foresee was that in escaping from the ills they had they were flying to others that they knew not of. There is a proverb concerning the frying pan which expresses the idea more tersely. The technicalities of code pleading are not fewer but merely different from those of the older system. Some twenty-five per cent of the time of this court is spent in the consideration of those technicalities. The reason is that, while the system is logically perfect the pleaders are not. The effect is to multiply errors; each man going un guided on his own conception of what is material, what is concise, what is ordinary, and what is necessary or desirable in other respects. The English "Rules of the Supreme Court," where our code says "ordinary concise language," say "as brief s the nature of the case will admit;' they then prescribe a set of forms of "statements" (i. e., complaints) and defenses (i. e., answers) and replies (i. e., replications) the use of which is made practically compulsory by order XIX, Rule 5, which says they shall be used when applicable (and when not, forms or like character) and "where such forms are applicable and sufficient any longer forms shall be deemed prolix and the costs occasioned by such prolixity shall be d.sallowed or borne by the party using the same." Pleading of matters of law or evidence is expressly forbidden. The effect of this system is to avo'd mistakes and they are very rare. Every pleader, in an ordinary case, has a sure direction which is a guide in an extraordinary one. Let us look at a few examples. Here is a form of statement in the Chancery Division in a suit for dissolution of partnership: In the High Court of Justice, Writ issued Jan. 15, 1924. and Thomas Jones, Defendant. 1. The plaintiff on Dec. 1st, 1923, entered into a partnership with the defendant for ten years. 2. That the defendant has broken the partnership articles as follows: He has failed to furnish the capital of £10,000 as agreed. a. b. He has not devoted the who'e of his time to the business of the partnership as agreed. C. He has drawn out of the partnership more than £100 per month. The plaintiff claims 1. Dissolution. ༡ An accounting. 3. A receiver. Solicitor for Plaintiff. |