would relieve the courts from a great burden of extra work. I think that would save a great deal of time.

8.

cases.

My particular criticism of this report is directed to Section I oppose the idea of the statutes regulating the setting of We do not always commence cases with the expectation that they will be brought to a speedy trial, and sometimes it is entirely satisfactory to both sides to let the cases lie on the docket year after year and get well seasoned before they are brought on for trial. (Laughter.)

Three years ago I disposed of the most ancient case on the docket in the District Court in Denver. I think I am now an attorney of record in the next oldest. (Laughter.) And I have no present intention, in this year, or in the year following, of bringing that case on for trial-and my action in that regard is entirely satisfactory to the other side. (Laughter.)

Moreover, the evil which Mr. Haynes has in his mind, namely, of the printed docket to advertise the fact that attorneys have pending cases, applies in the rural districts and not in Denver. We have no way in Denver of determining whether an attorney has cases on the docket or not, and we do not care.

C. C. Butler:

He tells us about them at the meeting! (Laughter.)

George C. Manly:

I said you do not care. Those rules certainly are not applicable to our situation in Denver. Not only that, they are not applicable to the situation of an attorney who resides in Denver, and has cases pending in half a dozen different districts throughout the State. That presupposes a ubiquity and omnipresence which we do not possess. It is bad enough in Denver to have cases pending in four divisions of the District Court, and two or three divisions of the County Court, and in the Juvenile

Court, and in the Federal Court, the Bankruptcy Court, and have cases reached in all of them on the same day, but a great many Denver attorneys have cases pending in half a dozen districts throughout the State, and they can not be expected to be present on the opening day of the term in all of these districts. Perhaps some of these rural attorneys favor a rule of this kind so as to put a penalty on the Denver attorneys for practicing throughout the State.

Edward S. Worrell, Jr.:

Are you talking for or against the motion?

Harry N. Haynes:

As heretofore stated, the rules suggested in the report are intended to be modified to meet special exigencies in different counties.

In reply to the point that counsel sometimes may have cases set for the same day in several different courts, the rules recommended provide for application to change date of trial on good cause without changing present practice in that behalf. The purpose of the rules is to expedite the setting of cases for trial and having them tried without undue delay.

George C. Manly:

I will accept the point of order raised by Mr. Worrell. My present quarrel is with the postponement of the decision of this question.

C. C. Butler:

I think that the suggestion made by Brother Worrell is a good one, that too speedy action ought not to be taken upon this report, and that we should take time to thoroughly examine, discuss and deliberate upon the different provisions. It is a very

important matter. Of course, it is important that we should arrive at some determination and some result, but it is far more important that we should arrive at the right result. We are to have today and tomorrow further papers on law reform. This is not the only one. There is to be one paper on Civil Procedure, followed later by one on Criminal Procedure. It seems to me that while we ought to take some definite action, probably, at this meeting, at this time it may be a little premature to act by a vote accepting the report of the Committee.

I believe it would be better if we defer final action until later on, at this session, until we have heard the other papers upon law reform. We may find that the provisions of this report, or the recommendations of this Committee, may vary materially from the recommendations of the other committees, or of those gentlemen who may make suggestions with reference to reform in criminal and civil procedure, and I suggest that it would be better if we defer final action until some later hour today, or until tomorrow.

Secretary Wadley:

It seems to me that Mr. Manly's point is well taken, that there ought to be some definite action reached by this Association, in view of the general unrest that exists in reference to the present condition of procedure. I would suggest that the matter be referred to the incoming Committee on Law Reform, to consider in connection with what papers may be further read at this meeting, and then to formulate a report which shall include such statutory acts as it recommends, properly drafted, or such court rules as it recommends, with such classification in respect to counties as it sees fit, and that such report be accompanied by such reasons as the Committee may see fit to give for its action, and by a statement of the objects to be accomplished, and that such report be printed within sixty days and

mailed to every member of the Bar Association, and that thereafter, within thirty days, the members of the Association vote upon the various propositions, whether acts or rules, which shall be numbered so they can be voted upon, and the vote of each member be sent back to the Secretary, and that that constitute the action of the Association.

That will give the local Bar Association an opportunity to discuss the matter in their own local communities, and each member an opportunity to make such suggestions as he sets fit, or such objections as he sees fit, and then such acts or set of rules as may be adopted can be put in shape, so far as practicable, prior to the meeting of the next legislature.

Harry C. Riddle:

I want to explain a matter with respect to the setting of cases, and I will be very brief indeed. I simply want to point out to those members of the Bar who are not members of the Bar of the Second Judicial District (Denver) the inappropriateness of a change in the present rules. The number of cases filed in the second district averages, and has averaged during my present term of office, from 2,400 to 2,700 cases per year, to be distributed between four judges, sitting in the civil divisions. It therefore amounts to between 600 and 700 cases to each judge, for the year. That is more than two cases for every day in which court is held for the trial of cases-approximately, nearly three cases per day.

In the case of the People ex rel. vs. Malone, District Judge, which is reported, I think, in about the 43rd Supreme Court Reports, the Supreme Court there determined that there was no statutory provision regarding notice to be given for the setting of a case after it was once brought to issue by the pleadings, but that the rules of the court of the Second Judicial District required that a notice should be given. That holding was re

cently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, in a case which is reported in the advance sheets of the Pacific Reporter, but not yet in the bound volume, a case which I tried myself.

The question arose in this way, the notice which our rules require to be given is that after the case has been brought to issue, the attorney moving for the setting of the case serves a notice, which is filed with the clerk, and on the 20th day of each month, the cases, in the order in which they are filed, are put on the calendar, for trial to jury or to the court, as the notice may indicate, and those cases are set for trial the following month, so that the District Court, generally speaking, of the Second Judicial District is at all times abreast of its calendar, or within thirty days of the calendar. That must necessarily be so, because otherwise we would accumulate such a mass of work that we would never get through with it. This notice, once given, if the case is set for trial, we will say, in July, to a jury, and we are unable to try the case at that jury term owing to other cases having precedence, the case then, on order of court, without notice to anybody, is set over until the next month, in the order in which it was originally set, and when reached is tried in its order.

The case to which I referred, the decision of which has just been affirmed, had to do with that matter.

Counsel complained that he had no notice of this transfer from one jury term to the other. The court simply held that the notice had been given originally, the case had been set, and the court of its own motion, because of its inability to reach the case for trial, reset it, and he was charged with the notice of the setting at all times.

We do not set our cases the first of each term. It is im possible. I do not know how any District Judge of the Second District could proceed to set a hundred or a hundred and fifty cases every term, at the beginning of the term, with any idea in