most central and western states. Its judges are far less embarassed by a network of rigid rules of conduct than in many other states. The result is that if a judge possesses an administrative faculty he is free to accomplish his work in the best manner. Legislated rules which provide no means for their enforcement are of no avail in giving executive talent to a judge who lacks it. Something more flexible, more intimate and personal, which develops an esprit de corps and affords many good examples is needed, rather than statutory rules.

CHAPTER IV. INFERIOR COURTS

The County Court:

The judicial power of the Judge of the County Court is exercised mainly in the administration of estates. From his orders issued in that capacity an appeal lies to the Circuit Court.

Sitting as Judge of the Quarterly Court, the County Judge has civil jurisdiction to $200 (concurrent with the Circuit Court from $100 to $200), civil appeals from justices and police courts and criminal jurisdiction the same as magistrates. Appeals from justices involving less than $25 must be taken to the Quarterly Court, but when larger amounts are involved there appears to be an option as to whether the appeal shall be prosecuted in the Quarterly or the Circuit Court.

It is to be presumed that in most counties few civil actions are commenced in the Quarterly Court and the provision for criminal jurisdiction in the court identical with justices' (Ky. Stat. Sec. 1093) appears not to be invoked; it appears also that usually appeals from Justice Court are taken to the Circuit Court. In some counties the Quarterly Court has but little business and is of very little value as part of the judicial machine.

The County Court Judge has also the power to try misdemeanor cases left on the Circuit Court calendar after completion of a term, (where the defendant is in jail and unable to procure bail) but this jurisdiction seems to be exercised only in a limited degree.

The overlapping jurisdiction of the County and Justices' Courts enables litigants to make a choice of tribunal, and the consequence is that in some counties most of the inferior judicial business is done in the County Court while in others the justices of the peace have a considerable share. It is impossible to generalize on this point.

The Justice Court:

In the formative period of the American State judicial system there was great stress on the need for providing a court close to every man's home. Justice had to be speedy and inexpensive to be a practical remedy. The system of local justice was worked out to this end. It became necessary to accept lay judges for these neighborhood courts because it was not practical to remunerate the justice sufficiently to interest the lawyer. With the doubtful result achieved by lay judges it became necessary to limit the scope of jurisdiction and to provide for trial de novo of all appealed cases.

The Fee System: In conformity with the universal theory of local government in this country, the office of justice was also made elective; and, because it would be impossible to estimate the amount of business to be done annually by these lay justices, fixed salaries were not considered applicable. A second reason for resorting to fees lay in the obvious convenience of making the public cost for justice indirect. Under a fee system the justice would be paid in accordance with the volume of work which he would do and there would be no charge on the public treasury and no need for raising money by direct taxation.*

This arrangement was probably the best that could be devised for pioneer conditions, but for a long time now the system has worked unsatisfactorily, not only in Kentucky, but in nearly every state in the country.

In some ways this State is better off than many states in respect to its justices. The Constitution and statutes call for a districting of the counties by commissioners who are appointed by the County Judge, who shall create not less than three or more than eight districts, each to have its justice. Each justice has county-wide jurisdiction but a defendant sued in a district in which he does not reside can have the case transferred to his home district. The provision for police

A correspondent says: "Never was there a greater abuse than the fee system."

magistrates in the cities and towns is virtually supplementary to the justice court plan.

Desirable Features of the System: The Kentucky plan is good in not providing an excessive number of justices. The Constitution has prevented the setting up of special courts, either to please localities or to assume special functions. While this has stood in the way of experimentation, it has also absolved the Legislature from political importunity. The provision for a uniform system of municipal police courts has served the need pretty well. In North Carolina over one hundred special local courts have been created by the Legislature, with various kinds of jurisdiction and even various kinds of procedure. The Kentucky system is uniform, it is comparatively simple and it has another good feature, a certain flexibility which has helped to keep it intact for a long time.

By this is meant the options given to litigants to start civil cases of certain kinds in the justice, Quarterly or Circuit Courts and to appeal from justices in certain civil causes either to the Quarterly or Circuit Courts. In criminal matters. there is commonly a choice of the justice before whom a case will be started. Or, the prosecutor may ignore the magistrates and start with a grand jury investigation. This optional element goes a long way to make a flexible system; it doubtless mitigates numerous personal, temporary and local short comings.

Defects of the System: Where the Kentucky inferior court. system is to be critized it is on a par, virtually, with the same courts in the other states. The defects may be stated briefly as follows:

1. The use of judges who are not lawyers. Even with the best of motives, the lay magistrate's work will often be mere twaddle; a course of appeal with trial de novo is no proper cure. The retrial of a cause, aside from expense, is highly objectionable because of the premium it places on perjury. Both sides have learned what is necessary to be proved.

2. The fee system is utterly indefensible in the twentieth century. It is absurd that a judicial officer should depend upon fees for his pay. This inevitably rewards the magistrate who encourages litigation, or who succeeds in attracting it to himself. Either of these motives is vile. Where there is competition there is a temptation for the magistrate to lean to the side of the litigant who is likely to bring the most business, or to decide against the litigant who is unable to pay the fees. To make a proper compensation depend on such contingencies is to load the scales in advance.

3. There is no supervision of the work of these inferior judges. As in the courts of general jurisdiction, there is a thorough system of appeals, but no organization to inculcate correct methods and to prevent, rather than to cure, palpable errors.

Innumerable specific defects may be charged against the system in any broad survey. If it works well in one or two districts it is fortunate, but there will be another where it is. not satisfactory. Or there will be a time when the worthy justices are retired. Or, if the results be good in a whole county today, there are counties in which it is quite the contrary, and no county where there is any real assurance that conditions will be good a few years hence.

The condition existing when this primitive system was devised have ceased to exist in most counties. Where there is good transportation and telephones the county is no longer the place it once was from the administrative viewpoint. It has shrunk to a size easily administered through a more centralized court.

In view of this change in conditions, it is fair to say that the old system of inferior courts, which tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and which so often result in dismal failure from the standpoint either of justice or of economy, would not be permitted to continue if there were a general public public knowledge of fitting substitutes.