New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1842-11-14
Important TO Lawyers.-Decision Oh Inc
Supreme Court.

|
/, Powers OF REFEREEs.-2. ApJouksMkN1s
OF TIE HEARING, &c
| Osoood ~ R,,tter.-A decision has lately been
given b, the Supreme Court in this case upon ths
above nont.. Of SEINE interest TO the profession.
The doctrine has been started that the powers OF
referees are entirely gone at the expiration Of the
Term of the Court in which the suit is pending.
next after the appointment Of The referees. The
cons eauence of such construction would be the
overthrow OF half the judgements obtained IN this
city in reference cases; fer our two city Courts,
the Common Pleas and Superior Court have but
more time than that for Investigation and decision
owing 10 long account, and other engagements of
referees, counsel, and witnesses.
In this suit the hearing began in the middle Of February
last and Was repeatedly postponed on the application Of he
Defendant against the strong resistance OF The plaintiff
that The first substantial examination only obtained on
the 18th Of March, The close Of February term OF the
". J. Common Pleas On the referees about
midnight adjourned the hearing, and tie defendant was
for the adjournment carried the cause over
iendat moved the Court 10 SCI aside on the ground OF r.
rego.ary, taking the position above mentioned The
Court denied the motion. Application was then made 10
the Supreme Court the August for Mantamus or
Prohibition the Common Pleas and the following j, The
Runsr vs. The Judges Of the No York G. +. BRONSON j."
II mistake suppose this question decided IN Jack
Ives Y WENDELL 6S7 In that case ie recrees on
the application Of cae parry which was opposed y The
other, adjourned postponed the hearing rom the zenith
of April beyond The nen next May term the Court and
remarked that this exceeded the power expressly
conferred the referees" be the statute. But what was
the effect Of this ahd o,heralleged "rregulares II they
must be deemed Such, was pcrposeiy elt undeclded-
There ntimaion in the that the referees lost all
jurisdiction OF the Tint question remains 10 be de-
;idcd
This most ungracous motion tie part OF the Rela
He asked for adjournment often as the referees met
Down to the last day but before tie end of the term
and when the then proposed, their motion
for days, rdlaor made object lie
only said he could not consent as the had
zone by he refused 10 APPEAR ard moved 10 aside
report Of the delay which had been for the most
part granted as favor 10 him am strongly inclined
the opinion that the adjournment from The 18th 10 the 24h
Of March, which hey ond lie soSli he regarded
made with the assent Of both parties II is true The de
PENDANT said he could consent but he made Objection
When the referees proposed the adjournment II the de-
erdan did got appsve OF H. he should in fairness and can
have told the referees that he denied their power 10 adj
ourn beyond the and that he intended 10 rely On te
hjeclor If this may be regarded adjournment with
the consent of both parties reason for holding that
referees lost ,Ae power afterwards proceeding IN the
whatever be the construction OF The statute
But not necessary To put tie upon tie ground OF
consent The statute provides that the referees pro-
coed with diligence 70 hear and deerm the matter in con-
and place for the hearing and shall adjourn the from
time to fse may be and the application o
nearing to time not extending beond the erf term OF The
court in which the suits pending" z 49, Il will be seen
eerees after appointing time ard place Tor The hearing
shall adjourn the same from time 10 tine as may he ne
cesSary.
This includes all those adournments which are usually
made by the referees their notion such as the ne
Of The hearing and adjournmens for logger peTled where
such course regarded by te OF The reerees
oe,ed in day. and it must sometimes happen that one
of the referees will be prevented by Sickness a,n
Affections, the calls OF urgent business from connulDe
the investigation from day TO day, to conclusion In sucn
the referees may adjourn Tor reasonable e PH
motion, and without the consent OF The parties or eir
# them The only limitation in the statute in relation 10
such adournnents is that they shall only be such as may
necessary" OF that necessity the referees must from The
nature of the be The judges The Court may, now.
ve inquire into the matter aad that the referees DO mol
oppressively and that the parties not DELAYED tor an
unreasonable time BIZ such atournments although they
may ertend eharng beyond the merit term after pds cam
eneed neve hasc the Effect Of putting an end TO the an
ihorityof the referees.
The last branch the section provides for those delays
which may be granted nation of one Of the pnr'lts a9
here there different limitation OF the power n Inc TEL
arees from thu which has been considered. On the mp
ica,ion OF either party and for good cause they ie RET
rees NAV postpoe snch hearing 10 time extending
beyond The next term of the Court inwic the suit pend
ing" II the referees on the application OF one party anu
without the coisen, OF the other pospone the hearing over
entire term, their powers will be al an end and they
cannot again in the matter without The consent OF !c
parties some order by the Court. Where such a
p0stponerent necessary may sometimes be e case
application must be made the Court. Sec Suydam Vs.
Swar 81 John. 476. Graham vs.. Morton, Wend a52
In this all the postponements, down TO the al DAY
but one Of The next term after hearing were
granted the application Of the relaor, and whether they
we're right or wrong he cannot complain. \ ne b5 d'
ournent from the 18Th 10 the 9th of March. which went
beyond The term not granted on the application OF The
plaintiff but ordered by the referees their own mo-
and for their nience and such an adonfn
meni have already seen within the power OF lhe
referees although il may carry the hearing beyond lhe
Term The defendant does complain that the adjourn
unnecessary. He Insists thai il irregular and
without authority. In that lie is mistaken
The fac, that have examined this question upon lis
merits be taken admission, even by mplca
ton, that could have awarded either nandamus or
prohibition il had arrived different conclusion
That question made by counsel and has not been
ccnsideres Motion denied T. Warner for The motion,
e. KetchGm opposed
H II