.MjEwMQ.MjYwMTA

10

the thing omitted be essential to the action, as if the Plaintiff does not merely state his title in a defective manner, but sets forth a title that is totally defective in itself", this defect will not be cured by the verdict, and the motion in arrest of judgment will be sustained. Thus by the law as it now is, and more especially since the liberal practice adopted in modern times by Courts of Justice, judgments will not be arrested for immaterial causes, or for matter which does not effect the substantial law & justice of the case. At the trial of an action before the jury, one judge alone presides, and decides the questions of law as they arise; - on the motion in arrest of judgment, the facts found by the verdict of the jury, are admitted; but the question whether the Plaintiff is by law entitled to judgment, admitting the facts to be as substantially alledged in his declaration, is submitted to the full Court, and thus opportunity is offered for a thorough examination of the law applicable to the case, and for the deliberate consideration, which is necessary for a correct decision, and which could not be expected from the Judge presiding at the trial, during the investigation of facts, and the examination of witnesses before the Jury. The effect, therefore, of the proposed change in the law, will not be merely to prevent the course of justice, being embarrassed by immaterial and frivolous objections, but will deprive the citizen of one of the means which the law now provides, to enable him to claim the opinion of the full Court on important legal questions, and thus to protect his rights, character and property from the consequences of hasty and illegal decisions. It may have been supposed, that this section of the act would have the effect to render the verdict of the Jury final, and that expense and delay in the