said of him, "Nihil tetegit quod non ornavit." A delightful companion, overflowing with wit and humor, he made his brother lawyers his firm friends.

He leaves behind him a record of good works, without interlineation or erasure to mar the fair face of the page. Few such men are left, and it is to be hoped that the future will produce their equals.

James R. Macfarlane, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1. Allegheny County, the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania, was born April 20, 1858, at Towanda, Bradford County, Pennsylvania. On the side of his father, his ancestry is Scotch Irish, while that of his mother is English. All of his forefathers were among the early resi· dents of Pennsylvania.

His early education was received in a collegiate institute at Towanda, after which he entered Princeton University, from which institution he was graduated in 1878. Having prepared himself for the study of law, he became a student with Davies and Carnochan. In 1881 he came to Pittsburg and on March 2 of the same year was admitted to the practice of law in Allegheny County. He attained a good position in his profession and was regarded as a careful, sound lawyer. He identified himself with many public movements concerning the welfare of the community and by reason of his reputation and ability as a lawyer, his friends presented him, in the fall of 1902, as a candidate for a seat upon the bench in the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Allegheny County. His campaign for the office was conducted in a quiet and dignified manner and resulted in his election by a large majority.

Judge Macfarlane's term of ten years began the first Monday of January, 1903. During the seven years in which he has sat upon the bench he has proven himself well fitted for the high office to which he was elected. He is a hard worker and has sat in the trial of many of the most important cases disposed of during that time. He resides on the Woodland Road, in the City of Pittsburg, is married and the father of four children.

THE LAWYERS' COURT.

BY G. J. C.

The general and increasing interest in the Lawyers' Court of Compulsory arbitration established in Allegheny County by the Allegheny County Bar Association causes the PITTSBURG LEGAL JOURNAL to devote considerable space to the tribunal in this number. Since the court is in its experimental stage and the majority of lawyers who have ruled out cases to be tried before it express their general satisfaction with the idea it seems there cannot be too much discussion of the subject just at this time, to the end that proper legislation can remedy all defects and perfect additional details in 1911.

Advocates of this court find their hardest work in convincing the dubious that it is to the greatest public advantage that the court at least be tested, if not encouraged. The old system of compulsory arbitration, or rather the practices that grew out of carelessness in taking advantage of the provisions of the Act of 1836 led the busy lawyer to look upon the idea as a passing whim. Several of these attorneys, however, have been compelled to appear with their clients before the court and defend, or prosecute suits. Much to their surprise, they discovered that questions of law were ruled upon, testimony taken under the rules of evidence and not infrequently non-suits were granted. Quite a few times when the case was over the attorney confessed that if he had suspected his case was going to be honestly tried he would have prepared it better.

Attorney Thomas M. Benner has made a most valuable suggestion which the Bar should not heed lightly. He thinks that a fair test of the plan would prove it of great public benefit, create more business and better fees for the lawyer, and lastly relieve the overworked judge and crowded trial list. To secure this test he suggests that every member of the Bar rule out at least two of his cases which he has at issue for trial before the Lawyers' Court. He estimates that there are 600 attorneys in active practice, and if each one cannot rule two cases out he can surely rule one. If only one that would mean in a short time the cleaning up of three full trial lists of one court.

Another subject discussed very considerably is the matter of fees for the arbitrators. In many petty cases which could be ruled the fee of $15 for three arbitrators would be larger than the amount sued for, and since the law does permit the actual charge of a larger fee than $1 except by agreement some little criticism has arisen. Several suggestions have been made upon this point. One is that in cases under $25 the fee be fixed at the limit allowed by law; another is that but $5 a day be allowed each arbitrator and this sum apportioned, to sums of not less than $1, among all the cases tried on a particular day.

Attorney J. E. O'Donnell, however, has an idea on the subject of fees which at least merits serious consideration on the part of the Bar Association. He says that inasmuch as the Association organized and originated the court, to demonstrate its good faith with the public and try out all points before the Legislature meets that the fees to the arbitrators be paid by the Bar Association until then. He estimates that $3,000 would suffice for this expense, and if the Association could not see its way to thus demonstrate to the public its faith in the idea to that extent, that possibly it could be arranged that only the fee of $1 be charged in all cases and the arbitrators be reimbursed for the balance of their fees by the Association. Even this arrangement would mean to the litigant that he can arbitrate for a less sum than he can try his issue before a jury for the verdict fee is $4 in each case. An article which appeared in "Law Notes" for December, 1909, and prepared by J. McF. Carpenter, Esq., is reprinted here at the request of a number of lawyers who desired the matter preserved in the LEGAL JOURNAL, with the numerous other papers which have appeared. This publication reads as follows:

"It is gratifying to all who have taken an active part in promoting the cause of arbitration and demonstrating what can be accomplished, to discover that the experiment of the Allegheny County Bar Association is attracting widespread attention. This new court is the outgrowth of a condition, not a theory. As the complaint against the law's delays is well-nigh national the causes of delay must in a general way be common to all the States. I am not able to specify particulars in which the constitutions and statutes of other States are similar to the constitution and statutes of Pennsylvania, and so leave their discovery to those who read "Law Notes."

"As a result of an enormous increase in business our courts have enough causes on the docket to keep them busy for two or three years. With this condition confronting us, and steadily growing worse, the Bar found it necessary to take some action. What is known as the Lawyers' Court of Compulsory Arbitration was proposed by H. M. Scott, Esq., of our Bar, and a committee of experienced attorneys, with Mr. Scott as chairman, was appointed with instructions to embody his plan in a report; which was done, and the report was, after full consideration, adopted, and shortly thereafter the Lawyers' Court was organized and began the hearing of causes. It is worthy of note that the court is not organized by authority of law, but by agreement among practicing lawyers. It is dependent for its success wholly upon the co-operation of attorneys. It is founded upon our Compulsory Arbitration Act of 1836, which provides inter alia, that

"It shall be lawful for either party in any civil suit or action, his agent or attorney, to enter at the prothonotary's office a rule of reference, wherein he shall declare his determination to have arbitrators chosen on a day certain to be mentioned therein, not exceeding thirty days thereafter, for the trial of all matters at variance in the suit between the parties.'

"This Act of 1836 contains many provisions regulating the proceedings before arbitrators, the filing of the award, appeal to the court, etc. It confers upon the arbitrators power to require the production of books; to judge of the competency and credibility of witnesses; to administer oaths; to adjourn meetings; to decide the law and the facts; to issue subpoenas and attachments for witnesses, and to punish for contempt. Certain actions do not come within the provisions of the Compulsory Arbitration Act. In the earlier days arbitration, either com