CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA AT MARCH TERM, 1952. RICHARD P. GREENE, Curator of Intestate Estates, Sinoe County, and WILLIAM N. WITHERSPOON, Petitioners-Respondents, v. JAMES A. CLARKE, FRANCES E. CLARKE, and AGNES B. MANNING, Heirs of the Late WILLIS J. CLARKE, Respondents-Objectors.

PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT OF THE PROBATE DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SINOE COUNTY. Argued April 17, 1952. Decided June 2, 1952. When an appeal is imperfect the court below may be ordered to resume jurisdiction and enforce its judgment with such conditions as the Supreme Court may impose. Petitioners, parties to the settlement of a decedent estate, applied to the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Sinoe County, for a final judgment respecting the estate, and alleged that the respondents herein, objectors below, had contrived to postpone settlement of the estate by dilatory tactics. After final judgment had been issued below, the objectors took exceptions and appealed to this Court, but failed to perfect the appeal. Upon application to this Court by peti- 172 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS tioners for enforcement of the judgment below, motion granted with conditions. William N. Witherspoon for petitioners. ton for respondents. J. R. Cray- MR. JUSTICE SHANNON delivered the opinion of the Court. This proceeding was commenced in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Sinoe County, before which the estate of the late Willis J. Clarke is being administered, he having died intestate. Because of the lack of sufficient personal property in said estate to pay all debts and expenses, an application was made by the Curator of Intestate Estates, Sinoe County, for an order for the sale of realty to settle said debts and expenses. This application was granted and the order given; whereupon the premises known as the Coliseum, being lot number 34 in the City of Greenville, were sold to William N. Witherspoon, one of the repondents herein. Upon the offer for admission to probate of the Curator’s deed evidencing said sale, objections thereto were filed. These objections, it would appear, remained undisposed of for a period of eight years, until, at the November, 1951, term of said court, application was made by the respondents for the hearing and disposition of said objections. Said application was instituted upon a claim that the objectors had been persistently baffling said hearing from time to time and to the prejudice and inconvenience of said respondents. Upon call of the case, Counsellor Crayton who was representing said objectors being out of the County, Frances Clarke, one of said objectors, made the following entry upon the court’s record : “At the May term of this court when Judge Dessaline T. Harris was presiding by assignment, the case LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 173 was called up for hearing. Counsellor Witherspoon objected on the grounds that James Clarke, one of the respondents, must be present. I then told the judge that I was present in the interest of the said James Clarke. The judge sustained the objections of Counsellor Witherspoon for the respondents on the grounds that James Clarke should be present. The case was therefore continued. Surprisingly, about four minutes ago, when I was going downtown, the sheriff asked me if I had seen the notice of assignment and I told him that I had not. On my return I stopped at the court to find out from the sheriff what the summons was for and his reply to me was that Counsellor Witherspoon was calling for the case today. Not having my lawyer on the spot, and my brother, James Clarke, also being absent, I am asking that the case be continued until another time for the reason that I feel that Counsellor Witherspoon is trying to take advantage of us.” Against the above entry Counsellor Witherspoon made the following record : “Eight years five months and twelve days ago, James A. Clarke and Frances A. Clarke surreptitiously came into this court with Agnes B. Manning, whom they named as one of the objectors, and Clara L. Clarke, widow of the said estate, and filed objections to the probation of a deed for lot number 3+ in the City of Greenville, sold by order of court by the Curator of Intestate Estates, Sinoe County, Reverend R. P. Greene, to pay the debts of objectors’ father, the late Senator Willis J. Clarke, as his personal effects were not sufficient to liquidate said indebtedness. Contravening the principle of law that a plaintiff should always be ready, these plaintiffs, knowing that the action was groundless, have been evading trial ever since they came into court. It would be useless for me to refer to any act of Judge Harris or his court because circuit judges are equals. But, to clarify your mind, I ask 174 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS this court to take judicial notice of the records which prove that it was I who demanded trial. Counsellor Crayton begged Judge Harris to continue the case for a week or so, as he had sent off to get James Clarke, one of the objectors, who is one day’s walk from Greenville, he being situated at Diempo in the Narkay Chiefdom, having fled this city some four years ago and never returned. Under Rule ‘7’ of the Circuit Court Rules, which rule is emphatic and leaves no way for any judge to use his discretion, civil causes can only be continued when a regular motion for continuance is filed based on grantable causes. “Counsellor Crayton knows this rule and also knows full well the terms of the circuit courts. Ever since he left Sinoe for the Extraordinary Session of the National Legislature, he has been in Monrovia having a jolly good time, and he never thought of protecting the interest of his clients in this case. Even after this court sent a radiogram last week to come and represent this matter, he has not even sent a motion for continuance in keeping with said rule, but simply sent a radiogram just today saying that he was ill and taking medical treatment. Counsellor Crayton should have sent a regular motion for continuance supported by a medical certificate. “The idea of the institution of courts in all countries of the world is intended primarily to settle conflicting claims as early as possible. Dilly-dallying for eight consecutive years or more is really playing with justice, and this court should not lend its assistance thereto. I therefore ask your Honor to proceed with the trial.” Ordinarily, of course, it would be unnecessary to quote the above two entries from the records of the lower court, since the matter now before us is simply an application for an order of this Court “for the enforcement of the LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 175 judgment of the lower court on the grounds that, having taken exceptions to the ruling of the trial judge striking the cause from the docket and prayed an appeal, they have failed to prosecute said appeal within the time limit under the law”; but we desired to point out the irregularities in the ruling of said trial judge from which an appeal was prayed but never processed and perfected. The appellants request the court to continue their case “to another time but not today” because of the absence of their lawyer, which was resisted by the respondents in manner shown above, with a concluding prayer in said resistance that the trial judge should “proceed with the trial.” Nevertheless the said trial judge took it upon himself, in the absence of any request therefor, to strike this case from the trial docket. Judges are required to be prompt, diligent and expeditious within the bounds of law and reason. Judges should not show eagerness to hear and determine particular cases. If the trial judge herein deemed it necessary to dispose of this case so as not to burden the docket he should have at least given objectors a few days of grace to retain other counsel and protect their rights. Suffice it to say that trial courts should always be responsible to the pleadings and issues. The ruling of the trial judge which the respondents are praying this Court to grant an order to enforce, because of the failure of the objectors to process and perfect their appeal, concludes as follows : “There being no motion before this court filed by the counsel for the objectors guaranteeing the sickness of counsel, this court has no alternative but to conclude that all this was done, not in ignorance of the law, but to baffle this trial, and, under the law in such cases made and provided, according to Rule `7′ of the Rules of Court, leaves no ground but to order the clerk to strike said cause from the trial docket for want of 176 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS legal statutory requisites ; and, if the objectors so elect, they may refile in keeping with law. And it is hereby so ordered.” (Emphasis supplied.) The respondents, who, in their resistance to the application for the continuance of the case, prayed the court not to grant same but to “proceed with the trial of said case,” must be presumed to have accepted the above ruling of the trial court. However, considering every phase of the matter, as presented by the application, and handicapped as we are without a regular appeal before us, we find ourselves with no alternative but to grant the application with a mandate to the court below to resume jurisdiction and enforce its own judgment by striking the cause from the trial docket, and, under the terms and conditions of said ruling, to grant objectors thirty days in which to refile their objections if they so elect. Costs disallowed. And it is hereby so ordered. Motions granted.