The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-06-02

HE New JUDICIARY AcT.-Previous to the
framing OF the new constitution, and the passage
of the Judiciary act, vast amount of ink and pa
per expended in appeals to the public, through
the press, on the various bubbles by which legis-
lation was prolonged and justice delayed, if not
altogether frustrated, until suitors became abso-
lutely tired out, and in the end ruined. Many of
these appeals were made while the convention
was in session framing the constitution, and were
intended to operate on that body; and their
thors predicted that the new constitution, and the
judiciary that would follow it, would remedy all
those evils; that the old, Anticipated method Of
pleading-the subtle distinctions and arbitrary rules
in use under the old system-would be done away
with, and that the proceedings of the State courts
would thereafter be based upon common sense,
and conducted in accordance with the progress
and spirit of the age. Those two instruments are
now in operation year, and we not yet able
to discover any Improvements in the principles by
which the courts of justice governed, or in
their mode of administering justice. On the con-
trary, we find that suitors subject to the same
delays, expense, and consequent vexation, as be-
fore. In proof of this, we need only refer to the
calendars of the different courts, which will be
found to be overloaded with causes but in par
ticular, we refer to the mass of unfinished bust
ness on the calendar of the Superior and Circuit
Courts, which is really frightfu AS set off, the
judges complain of want of accommodation, and
throw the blame on the Common Council; while
the Common Council, on their side insist that the
accommodation al present provided for the judges,
is sufficient for the transaction Of all the business
OF the city and county that by providing addl
tlonal court room. and organizing more couits,
the entire of the legal business of the Stat
will be transacted here, by which the city
will be put to great additional expense in
fitting up court rooms, providing additional Off
GERS, stationery, Goals, &c. but the accumulation
of business does not arise from this cause alone
there are other difficulties in the way There is.
it seems, a want of unanimity among the Judges
themselves. We remember that, at the opening of
the May term, there were only two Judges in town
to organize the Supreme Court. The consequence
was, that 1t had to be adjourned half dozen
of times, and at length, an express was sent off to
the Governor, to request him to select Judge, and
compel him to come down to this city, that the
court might be organised and the business proceed
ed with We are not apprlsed what STEPS his Ex-
ceency took on that OCCASION or what answer he
sent but understand that no Judge came, and
that the Supreme Court had not been in session in
this city, except partially, during the May term.
In addition we find that, under the new SYSTEM
lawyers have still the same scope as under the DID,
for exercising legal ingenuity and sophistry. and
turning the State courts into Star and Inquistion
chambers. We had an illustration of this in
case that happened few days ago, in which
Editor Bennett is plaintiff and the rcdoubtable
Bishop Hughes is defendant. That very astute
lawyer, Mr.. Charles O'Conor, rahed up an old sta.
tute, passed some twenty years ago, which ena-
bled party to examine a witness, dc beae cssc
who might be about TO leave the country, and, in
case of his refusal to answer &C., authorized the
Judge 10 commit HIM. As we said BEFORE Mr..
OConor raked up this statute, and very Ingenious
ly attempted TO graft it on another passed in 1877,
which enables either party to bring his adversary,
in the nciplent stages of the cause, by subpoena,
before Judge, TO be examined, but annexes no
penalty to refusal to answer. When this was
shown by Mr.. Galbraith, our lawyer, up starts Mr..
O'Conor and calls upon the Judge to commit the
editor for a contempt, under the section in the old
act which empowers him TO commit a witness
(not party,) who refuses to answer; but Judge Ed
wards very promptly told his legal Trend he could
do no such thng-there wasno connection between
the two acts they intended for different puI-
poses, and TO obtain different ends. Mr.. Bennett
was not before him under the old act; and under
the new one he had no authority 10 compel him 10
submit 10 an examination lie might answer, or
not, just as he pleased.