Toasts Hon. A. F. Fox, Toastmaster "The Justice of the Peace" HON. RICHARD F. REED "The Lawyer" HON. Wм. C. MCLEAN "Relations of the Bench and Bar to Present Public Conditions" HON. J. S. SEXTON "The Value of a Precedent" "The Bench of Today" HON. EDWARD MAYES 0 "THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE." By Hon. Richard F. Reed, of Natchez. DO not recall that this important official in our judiciary system has ever been presented for consideration at any of our meetings. You are all acquainted with him. There may be some who have reached such a high point of success in the practice of their profession that will scarcely wish to recall their experiences in the justice's court. It is hardly possible that there is a Mississippi lawyer who has not practiced in this court of first resort. If there is, then he should receive our sympathy in not having had the proper early training. There is one thing sure, that some of the most difficult questions which we have had to answer were in this court. The points of law arising in cases within the justice of peace jurisdiction I have found numerous and puzzling. Another reason for my presenting this subject now is, that there has been an agitation of late years regarding the abolition of the office. I do not believe that this will be done soon. I know that the justice of the peace is not always referred to in complimentary terms and that he is frequently the subject of humor. For instance, just before rising to speak, an eminent member of our Bar, now just closing a distinguished service as a member of our highest court, told me it was the custom of a justice of the peace in his neighborhood to carry two beans in his pocket; a white one called the plaintiff and a black one, the defendant. When a case before him was closed, he pulled out a bean and decided accordingly. Now, you laugh, but he is not the only judge who has guessed or chanced it. There are others. When they have occupied benches whose decisions could be reviewed, they have been caught up with, too. Then we are frequently too severe in our condemnation of the actions and decisions of the justice. For instance, in a matter of jurisdiction. It is said that a justice in a Mississippi county tried a man for murder and had him hung. And that in another county a magistrate granted divorces. Now the Code contains a statute which says that a murderer should be hung and also provides for divorces. It was only a mistake in jurisdiction. And this question is constantly being raised by lawyers in higher courts. Besides, he married the couple; why should he not divorce them. And the man who was hung should not complain. He had a trial. Doubtless there were men in that same county who had not received as fair a hearing before being treated in like manner. I am told of a young lawyer going to the court of a country justice of the peace and telling him that he could not try the case before him, that he did not have jurisdiction. The court very promptly answered, "You just wait around here for a short time and I'll show you whether I can try it." We should respect the office because it has long existed. Its history is interesting. It came to us with our first English immigrants and the hardy men from whom we get our laws and government. As early as the fourteenth century, under the common law, as conservators, or wardens of the peace, this officer played an important part in the administration of law in England. As one ancient statute has it, "for the better keeping and maintenance of the peace the king will that in every county good men and lawful which be no maintainers of evil or barritors in the county, shall be assigned to keep the peace." It was during the same century that they were by statute given judicial powers. In America his jurisdiction was first confined to criminal cases, but later extended to civil actions. The office has always been one of marked honor in the British Empire. And, we must admit, has been a most useful one in the entire history of our American people. The justices of the peace being located in the several neighborhoods of the county, makes it convenient for the citizens in settling disputes of a minor nature, and assist in the general maintaining of good order. In this connection, I would like to offer as a good reason against the abolition of the office, the fact that the holding of the justice courts in rural communities affords entertainment for the people. Upon the trail of a case they, the friends and neighbors of the litigants, assemble to hear how the witnesses swear, the lawyers examine and cross, and to listen to the eloquent speeches, moving to tears or perhaps indignation. It may be some will be called on the jury. Generally all, except the fellow, and his lawyer, who loses, enjoy the occasion. It takes the place of the picture show in the towns. The office is often filled by able and conscientious men. There may be some like the 'squire who wanted to chastise the darky because he was told that the darky said that the " 'squire had ancestors." But, on the other hand, many intelligent men honor the office. Some of these may not have a complete knowledge of the law. I have known some who had their own, and peculiar way of meting out justice. But it was generally meted. For instance, "his honor" would know every one in his neighborhood and had cognizance of his misdeeds. The violator might not be technically guilty of the charge preferred, but he was guilty of another violation, and, as he was before the court, why not give him a little punishment to save another trial. Then suppose the court knew the man before him was guilty,-that is, knew it from general neighborhood information,-should he be released because at the trial there did not happen to be offered sufficient formal testimony to prove the charge? All of this may be only rude justice, but it is better than no justice. Mississippi has had many original characters. Men of strong individuality. Quite a large number of these men have filled the office of justice of the peace. I recall one, a man of the highest edu |