only are concerned with special matters of pleading and practice where the action is concerned with a rather limited set of subjects.

In addition to the usual grounds for change of venue, Wisconsin has probably gone further than any other State in allowing a party to demand a change on account of the alleged prejudice of the Trial Judge. The mere filing at any time of an unsupported affidavit by a party stating that he believes the Trial Judge is prejudiced against him, without giving any reasons for that belief, at once ousts the Trial Judge of jurisdiction to try the case and requires him to secure the attendance of another Judge for the trial, or if this cannot be done before the end of the term, to send the case to another county. It is a very general belief that this provision has opened the way to serious abuses. Many of these affidavits have been filed merely for the purpose of delay, as where a continuance of the case has been refused. At the last session. of the Legislature a strong effort was made to repeal or modify this provision but this was unsuccessful because of an inability to agree upon some substitute.

Instead of following the common law practice of requiring exceptions to a Judge's charge to be taken before the close of the trial, the Wisconsin Code now allows such exceptions to be taken at any time before the close of the term. Exceptions to refusals to charge as requested must, however, be taken during the trial. This matter has been under discussion and various modifications of the present rule have been suggested. It is believed by many that the Wisconsin rule is unjust in allowing exceptions at a time when the Judge has no opportunity to correct errors which he may have made. There is, however, considerable opposition toward the

adoption of the strict common law rule and there seems no prospect for any substantial modification in this regard in the near future.

The Wisconsin Code probably presents the Code system in as simple a form as does the Code of any State which has followed the original adoption of this system in New York. While there are various provisions governing special classes of actions, yet on the whole it does not go into minute detail but takes the general outline of the system and leaves the details to the development by the rules and decisions of the Court. The last revision of the Wisconsin Statutes was in 1898 and the session laws since that time show comparatively few amendments to those sections of the Statutes covering the Code of Procedure.*

There is on the whole comparatively little demand for any general revision of the practice in the State. Most of the discussion has been over a few points upon which improvement is sought and upon the question of Court organization. The Wisconsin State Bar Association and the Wisconsin Branch of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology have committees which are to consider the general subject of reform in procedure but no reports have as yet been made by these committees. The Law School of the University of Wisconsin has also been

The following reference is made to the Wisconsin Code by Honorable John B. Winslow, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in his recent work, "The Story of a Great Court:

"After an experience of more than fifty years under the Code it seems fair to say that the results have been in the main satisfactory. It is true that it has not resulted in the elimination of all technicalities, nor has it made it possible for a layman to draw his own pleadings and try his own case, as some of its enthusiastic supporters predicted, but, on the other hand, it must be regarded as a long step in the direction of simplifying pleading and procedure and cutting off many of the very technical and useless refinements which had gradually developed in the old common-law system. This is largely due to the fact that Wisconsin has added very few amendments to the original Code, but has allowed the system to develop naturally by judicial interpretation and thus has escaped the infliction of a vast and complicated statutory system of pleading and procedure, such as New York now has and which seems almost as cumbrous and artificial as the previous system."

conducting, both through a member of its faculty and by means of investigation by its students, a survey of the actual working of the Courts of the State, with particular reference to the trial of criminal cases. It is expected that some of the results of this investigation will be published in the near future. The results so far obtained tend to show that there is very little delay in the trial of criminal cases and very few reversals of convictions.

SIMPLIFICATION OF THE PROCEDURE IN

SURROGATE'S COURT

The following are synopses of letters received from the Surrogates of the State of New York with reference to the simplification of procedure in Surrogate's Court, in response to a letter sent to them at the request of Hon. Robert Ludlow Fowler, one of the Surrogates of New York county.

NEWTON B. VAN DERZEE, Surrogate

Title 2, Chapter 18, Article I should be amended and simplified so as to state definitely the requirements for service of a citation. Provision should be made for serving infants and incompetents, both within and without the State.

Section 2547, which gives the Surrogate of New York county permission, in his discretion, to transfer a probate proceeding to the Supreme Court, should apply to all counties. It is the practice now in some of the counties, where there is a contest in a probate proceeding, to use the Surrogate's Court more for the purpose of a fishing expedition than to try the case upon its merits.

Section 2615 should have added subdivision 5, to read:

66

Any person named as legatee in the will whose legacy is affected or revoked by a codicil."

Unless such legatee is one of the next of kin, he gets no notice of the probate proceeding.

Section 2728 should be amended so as to make it appear more clearly who are necessary parties to a final accounting. Next of kin are not interested in the final accounting of an executor, unless they are legatees or devisees, unless the decedent dies intestate as to a portion of his property; and they should not be cited unless they are interested.

Section 2746. The amount of a distributive share of an infant which a Surrogate may, in his discretion, direct to be paid to a parent should be increased from $50 to $250.

BROOME COUNTY

ROBERT S. PARSONS, Surrogate

In the course of my eleven years' experience as Surrogate many questions of procedure have arisen which are far from what they should be; but I will call your attention to but one, and that arises under section 2545 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section, among other things, provides:

Upon such a trial, the Surrogate must file in his office his decision in writing, which must state sepa