A man who has witnessed an accident to a woman by a street car, in spite of his humanitarian instincts will run around the corner for fear of being called as a witness.  The man who hears at night the call of “Police!  Police!” in the street, jumps out of bed and begins to put on his clothes, but thinks better of it for the same reason.  If a man is in a taxicab that is run into by an express wagon, and the resulting suit is brought by the taxicab company for $110 damages, he may have to attend court five separate days as a witness and the case may not be called.  He has to leave the State to avoid being annoyed by the subpoena server, who dogs him at his club and at his home.  The witnesses have lost their time and their patience.

Each lawyer knows this and a petty game of playing for delays and adjournments sometimes goes on.  Suppose there is a good claim which nevertheless the defendant denies, knowing how lengthy and wearisome is the game of reaching a case, he often succeeds for years in preventing its collection.  The game is simply to tire out the opponents, clients, and witnesses.  A clever and unscrupulous lawyer can throw so many obstacles in the way of a plaintiff that, unless he have a strongly developed streak of obstinacy, he will give up in disgust or be glad to compromise.

Unless both sides are anxious to be reached it is practically certain a case will be adjourned two or three times.  A sworn affidavit is presented with the doctor’s certificate that the client or witness is sick, or the sworn statement that a witness can not be found, or that the lawyer is engaged in the trial of another case.  The excuse may be valid and the reasons may be sound, but the adjournment of the day for trial occurs again and again.  This is one of the causes for the complaint as to the law’s delay.  Naturally calendars have to be made and called.  Cases have to be tried and others have to be reached in order, but at least there should be sufficient and intelligent planning of the order.

It seems rather a weak answer to say that no one can tell how much time will be occupied in the trial of a case.  If any systematic or scientific method of regulating the calendar were devised, one of the evils would be avoided.

The very call of the calendar in some courts occupies to an unreasonable extent the time of the judge who might as readily be engaged in the real work of the court.  The aggregate value of the time of the judge, the lawyers, the witnesses, and the jurymen who have all been sitting about waiting, for the call of the calendar is, for one hour’s delay a large sum.  The waste might be saved by an intelligent bureau for the administration of court business which would have absolute control over all calendar practice.

That the judge should delay a whole court-room full of people by being late in opening court should not only be a matter of apology, but is reprehensible to the extent of being multiplied by the number of people he has kept waiting.  On the other hand, the usual course of proceeding being apparently with the object of dragging out the business of the court, makes the tardiness of the judge seem only an incident.