in courts of general jurisdiction in this State, and no testimony to which objection has been made and sustained by the court shall be taken down or inserted in the record; but the rulings of the trial court thereon shall be presented to the Court of Appeals for determination by certificate from the trial court, or in sucn other manner as that court by its rules may direct; and in said cases, no bills of exception shall be required.”

The committee thinks they have embodied all the objections urged to the original recommendation and have put it in a brief form. I move that the report of the committee be adopted.

George Whitelock: That carries, of course, the recommendation to press the bill?

Mr. Hisky: Yes, sir.

Mr. Joseph C. France: Does it say, no testimony to which or no question to which?

Mr. Hisky: No testimony to which objection has been made.

Mr. France: It is already in the record.

Mr. Hisky: I don't think it makes much difference whether you say question or testimony.

S. S. Field: You had better say evidence instead of testimony.

Mr. Hisky: And no testimony to which objection has been made and sustained by the court shall be taken down or inserted in the record.

Mr. France: It must be taken down before the objection is made. That means question and not testimony.

Mr. Hisky: The testimony is the answer of the witness. In its last analysis I presume that the testimony, that which is testified to, is the answer of the witness, and all answers of the witness are predicated on the questions asked. I think testimony as we understand it, will include the question and the answer. The testimony means, of course, the answer, and we cannot have the answer with any sense unless we have the question on which the answer is predicated.

Mr. Field: Do you not want the rule to apply to documentary evidence, as well as to oral testimony?

Mr. Hisky: I think so.

Mr. Field: Would it not be better then to say evidence. instead of testimony?

William C. Devecom: I am sure that I understand the object of the proposed act. It strikes me, if you take

it in the same way as in a court of law, and must be taken before the judge at the request of either party, that the whole time of our judges will be taken up with equity cases.

We now have testimony taken before the examiners and the examiners will be abolished and the whole time of our judges taken up in hearing equity cases.

Mr. Whitelock: It is the same thing that we have had since 1896. We have not changed that part of the law at all.

Mr. Hisky: We have not changed the law at all.

Mr. Devecmon: It has not been acted on generally.

Mr. Hisky: That is up to the judges of the respective circuits.

The President: It does not require that the testimony shall be taken before the judge?

Mr. Hisky: The present law is, "The court shall, on application of a party in interest or may of its own motion order," etc. We have not changed the law.

The President: That leaves it in the discretion of the court or on the application of the party in interest.

I

David Ash: I must say, with my brother Devecmon, that I do not understand what this change means. will draw your attention to the first line of the section: "Testimony produced under the aforegoing section." If you will turn to the aforegoing section, you will find that the court on the application of a party in interest or may of its own motion order, etc. All the testimony taken under Section 261, that is, testimony produced under the aforegoing section, is liable to the regulation laid down in Section 261-A. I do not understand that, I do not know what it means. It is not clear.

The President: I understand if it is recommended, they have the privilege of taking the testimony before the examiner, as we do largely in our circuit still, and in some cases take it in open court. As a rule, we take it before the examiner. If it is taken in open court this is applicable.

Mr. Ash: Then I suggest that in order to prevent

ambiguity you say, testimony produced under the aforegoing section before the judge; because the aforegoing section includes all testimony taken before the judge and examiner.

The President: It is on the application of a party in interest or on its own motion, instead of taking testimony provided in the aforegoing section.

Mr. Hisky: Before the question is put, is it the desire of the Association that the word "evidence" shall be substituted for the word "testimony," so that it shall read: "And no evidence to which objection has been made," etc.?

Mr. Field: I move that you substitute the word “evidence" instead of "testimony."

Mr. Hisky: I accept that.

The President: Is there any further discussion desired?

(Cries of question, question.)

The question was then put, and on the vote being taken, it was decided in the affirmitive, and the recommendation of the Committee on Laws, No. 2, was accordingly declared adopted.

Mr. Field: There was one little change in Section 261 where the word "may" was to be inserted.

Mr. Hisky: I mentioned that. I move we now take a recess until 3 o'clock P. M.

Mr. Field: I second the motion.

The question was put and on the vote being taken, it was decided in the affirmative, and the Association accordingly took a recess until 3 o'clock P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION

July 3rd, 1913.

Pursuant to recess taken, the Association reassembled at 3 o'clock P. M., the President in the Chair.

The President: The discussion of reports of committees is in order, the first report being that of the Committee on Legal Education, which was read yesterday.

Judge James A. Pearce: That report has been already read and I do not suppose the Association desires to hear it read again. I will only say that we endeavored to set out with more fullness than was really necessary the reasons which led us to the conclusion we have reached. If I were to say anything, it would really be nothing but a restatement of those reasons. Unless it is desired, I will submit the report without any further remarks.

The President: Without rereading the report, could you not state briefly its contents, give a brief summary of the report.

Judge Pearce: Yes, I can do that. It contains two recommendations, and I will endeavor to state them briefly without reading them. I will simply say that the effect of the first recommendation is to extend the period