A Serious Problem. maelstrom, into which the hapless practi tioner plunges in search of the precious jewel, — a parallel case. Decisions of State courts in the United States multiplied an hundred fold; selected cases, with all the latest modern improvements; a score of text-books on practically the same general subject, although all claim to be different; digests that digest, and some that do not, — all claiming the most perfect exactness as to citations, with expensive additions and im provements in the way of " cross-references," "nice classification," "topical annotations," "together with notes of English cases, mem oranda of statutes, annotations in legal peri odicals, etc.; a table of the cases digested, and a table of cases overruled, criticised, fol lowed, distinguished, etc."; and as a grand finale to all this, a million foot or side notes of cases which thresh out the old straw again. And then the works on special subjects and special jurisdictions, the multi plicity of courts and commissions, and the consequent difficulty of defining jurisdiction thereof. A short time ago an injunction was sued out of one of the many courts at Detroit, Mich., to restrain and enjoin a man from the use of his mouth in swearing by note, for his own immediate and particular enjoyment it' appeared, and as he had long been in the habit of doing without let or hindrance. But his tones had lost their whilom sweet ness, and had become " harsh and discor dant " and annoying to his neighbors. A plea to the jurisdiction of the court brought out an elaborate discussion of the right by an earthly court to deprive a man of the use of his voice. The court, however, we may add, overruled the objection to his jurisdiction, and put a quietus on that voice. And the awful conflict of authority that struck the puzzled, or dazzled rather, attor ney when he appeared before a country justice in one of the interior counties of Michigan for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court. Mr. read the statute in such case made and provided,
357
when Mr. Justice, looking him squarely in the eye, said, " Mr. , is that all the law you have on the point?" Informed that it was, he replied, "Then I decide against you, sir/ But now, seriously, if Mr. Justice Sharswood was right in his proposition that " to know the law ' is not so difficult " as to know where to find it," at this time so long ago, how much more force is there in that expression in this age of law-book writers! Law-books have come down upon us in the past decade in a perfect shower; and the lawyer of means to day is in greater risk of having too many books than of not having enough, and the needy lawyer is a good deal puzzled in mak ing his selections from the many really good works that have been published. How much we hear nowadays of " current case law," and " case winners," and " case lawyers," "annotations" and "annotated cases "! These are surely products of the times, and by their exceeding particularity and observance of detail, the difficulty spoken of by Sharswood is multiplied ten fold. We should indeed be wanting in grati tude for the work accomplished by a large number of able writers of our time, did we fail to properly appreciate the onerous and exacting work necessitated in these digests and annotations. We must not ascribe added difficulty to this problem, by reason of the work of digesting and annotating. No : this work, if well done, is our salvation. Questions and phases of questions are multiplying in the courts at an astonishing rate. Law journals help to set the pace by propounding such questions as involve the importance of acts of 1" Rats in the Law of Torts," as a kindred condition, with God and the public enemy, in relieving from responsi bility. The Supreme Court of New Mexico, in the case of Ellis v. Newburgh,2 found it necessary to pass upon the doctrine of the "Faithisfs," and to review to some extent their Bible, known as the " Oahspe," which 1 New Jersey Law Journal.
- Central Law Journal.
