608 PLEADING PLEBEIANS them contrived to render the procedure more exact and certain, and all of them essential in greater or less degree to the system. Some of these rules, as well substantial as accidental, concerned mere matters of form. The vio- lation of these rules was good ground of de- murrer. For example, of the multiform rules which governed the production of the issue, of those particularly which demanded its uni- ty, certainty, directness, and materiality, many were purely formal. Defects in these respects were taken advantage of by special demurrers. These pleas did not regard at all the merits of the case ; they did not deny that the party whose pleading was objected to had a good ground of action or of defence; bat simply raised the question whether the statement or denial of facts was made in that particular technical way which the rules of pleading re- quired. Even though the cause of action was confessedly good, yet if the statement was in- artificial (and in England the question whe- ther it were could be carried through all the courts, and even to the house of lords), the party must submit to loss of his suit or pay often heavy costs to the other side for the privilege of amending. The art of pleading possessed, then, two distinct systems of rules, the substantial and the formal. So far as only the former were looked atj the science was justly pronounced ingenious and excellent. But the formalities and technicalities devised and insisted on, though they were for the sake of securing greater nicety, had become so nu- merous ; so many fictions had been engrafted on the system for the same purpose ; so com- pletely, by the gradual accretion of all sorts of refinements and the want of judicious legisla- tive interposition in removing them, had the substantial rules of pleading been overbalanced and often defeated by those which were only formal ; by all these means, so many techni- cally fair but really unfair advantages were of- fered to dishonest and quibbling pleaders, that at last the complaints against the whole science of special pleading became so loud, that noth- ing but its almost entire abolition could quiet them. Partial and important reforms were effected in the reign of William IV., especially by the so-called new rules of Hilary term, 1834. But that which they sought to do, and partially did, was more effectually accomplished by the common law procedure act of 1852. By that act the old terms of art and technical forms of pleas were all cleared away, and the whole theory and intent of the mode of procedure under the act were directed to the framing of simple narratives of facts by plaintiffs, and plain and fair answers to them by defendants. This is carried still further by the act for the constitution of a supreme court, passed Aug. 5, 1873. Tinder that act forms of action are to be no longer recognized ; suit is commenced by writ of summons indorsed with a statement of the nature of the claim made or of the relief or remedy required; the defendant files and serves a printed statement of his defence, set- off, or counterclaim, if any, and the plaintiff files and serves his reply where one is required. All these are to be " as brief as the nature of the case will admit." The plaintiff may join any number of clauses of action in the same suit, but to avoid confusion and embarrassment in trial, the separate claims may be ordered to be separately tried. In our older states the science of special pleading had been re- ceived as part and parcel of the common law ; but many of its more odious features either were never adopted, or have been reformed by legislative enactments. The most remarkable reform thus made in this country was perhaps that effected in New York in 1848. In that year the separate equity jurisdiction which had hitherto existed there was suppressed. The code adopted for the regulation of legal pro- cesses expressly declared that in future there should be no distinction between legal and equitable remedies; the common law practice and pleading were put out of the way, and gave place to the present system, which in its general features very closely resembles the equity procedure. One form of action only is allowed. The pleadings are few, concise, and must be framed in language easily understood. Allegations are to be liberally, not strictly, construed. Facts are to be respected rather than pleadings ; and the latter may at any time in the progress of the suit be revised and ac- commodated to the proofs. In all respects the code seeks, by the utmost liberality, to assure easy and efficient remedies to suitors. Changes have been made in a like spirit, and in the same direction, in the other states ; and to no part of the whole province of jurisprudence has reform addressed itself in this country more earnestly and more acceptably than to the re- construction of the forms of process, and to the restoration of its essential efficiency and sim- plicity to the necessary science of pleading. PLEASANTS, a N. W. county of West Virginia, separated from Ohio by the Ohio river; area, about 280 sq. m. ; pop. in 1870, 3,012, of whom 16 were colored. It has a broken or rolling surface, and contains some good farming land. The chief productions in 1870 were 15,283 bushels of wheat, 67,580 of Indian corn, 14,596 of oats, 15,925 of potatoes, and 592 tons of hay. There were 620 horses, 1,863 cattle, 2,918 sheep, and 1,954 swine. Capital, St. Mary's. PLEBEIANS (Lat. plebeius, from plebs, the common people), a class of Roman citizens not included either among the patricians or clients. Originally they were excluded from the senate, from all offices of state, from the making of laws, and from marriage with patricians. The constitution of Servius Tullius recognized their political existence, and divided them into tribes. Tarquinius Superbus abolished all the privi- leges conferred on them by the preceding king ; and although on his expulsion these were pro- fessedly restored, yet when all fears of his re- turn had been laid aside their condition was
