The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-03-07
Supreme Court.
Supreme Court.
Before Hon Judges Edwards, Mitchell and Roosevelt
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDGES EpMONDs AND


Before Hon Judges Edwards Mitchell and Roosevelt
THE DIFfEHHNCE BETWEEN JUDGES EDMONDS AND
ROOSEVELT.
MARCH 6.-Wn Titus Is. Chas. NJ. Hay-Ths was a
motion appeal from the order of Judge Roosevelt,
made on the third instant annung that Of the 2Sth ut
by Judge Edmonds which overrued the original judg-
mcnt In the The question Of the legality of these
orders came for argument Mr. George White for the
appellant maintained the legality Of the position assumed
by Judge Edmonds, and proceeded to state the circu
stances.
Judge Roosevelt interrupted saying that counsel was
not quoting his opinion correctly and proceeded to state
his view Of the The grounds Of his last decision
were these:Firs it was very grave question whether
Judge Of the Supreme Court after he had been selected
according 10 law to act Judge in the Court of Appeals
could preside in the Supreme Court The second point
wasthat surprising that question ont Of the way
not competent for any Justice Of the Supreme Court pro-
per to review coacray the net of this court and call in
question the act Of another Judge and declare void
Tho decision Of this Court that whatever may be the
merits of this question not competent for Judge Of
this court coatery to review it The third point this
admitting both these matters, surprising Judge had
power coateray to sit in judgment on the net of his
equal Judge, that in fact the error committed by
him. and not by the Judge whose conduct he criticised
Therefore the order declared void and imperative
and the original decree directed to be restored.
Mr. White admitted the general correctness Of this
and proceeded to argue the legality and vail
dty Of Judge Edmonds order, and cited, in support
thereof sections 26S and 22 of the New Code and the
Judiciary act of 1S47 vol and So and other autho
rites Mr. Ambrose H. Jordan replied-If Judge Edmons
could vacatc Judge Roosevets order Of the previous
ca term and had the power to do it, then it would fol-
low as matter Of course, that at subsequent term
Judge Roosevelt would have the power to vacae his order
again. that the absurd consequence which followed
and the absurd position in which the court would find
itself involved If things Of this kind found to be
according to law 1t would be game of shuttlecock be-
tween justices in special term in reversing each others
DECISIONS but he did not believe that this is the result Of
thing to be found in the New Code He believed that
drawn up in writing and filed; but that may be well
done by the clerk entering the opinion in the book which
il virtually among the records Of the court He con
vacang the judmcnt Of Judge Roosevelt was glarngy
wrong.
Judge Mitchell said that he thought he knew enough
Of the matter from Judge Edmonds to say that he did
not the decision Of Judge Roosevelt The ques
ton was whether the judgment had been valid aud he
Mr.. Jordan-I a In point of practice and
the qcson did Judge Roosevelt put his decision in
self he looks down upon the clerk and says enter and
and in the next place did Judge Roosevelt file the
decision All that that means is, did Judge Roosevelt
enter the Judgment upon the proper archives Of the
court Another question arose whether Judge OF the
special term has right to set aside order entered
sass or in Other words wnssnfr c us%sn Of In
sitting as court also: whether Judge has right to
yacate judgment Of Judge sitting with coordinate
jurisdiction! lie presumed that there no lawyer
would attempt to say he had lie denied that Judge
Edmonds or any other Judge had right to review the
decision court Of appellate above had the right. and
II was unnecessary 20 refer to authorities that subject
but It would lead to the most pernicous ii
one Judge OF the special term allowed review the
judgment OF another Judge Of special term The 27Sth
section Of the code states that the Judgment of Judge at
special term is not subject to the review ola single Judge
IL IL only subject to the review of the general term
Counsel referred to the sixth judiciary article which
states that the judge of the Court Of Appeals shall hold
no other Office Of public trust and the judges Of the SUI
preme Court shall hold other Office Of public trust
Now. Judge Edmonds claims that while he il judge OF
the Court of Appeals, he may down here aud do
the duties Of judge of the Supreme Court When the
constitution was framed II not contemplated that
should have had gentlemen of the capacity perform
this double duty and while must forego all the ad-
yantages ofhavpg judge Of the Court Of Appeals coming
down here to decide In our Supreme Court must
member that IL is 80 ordered in the constitution Judge
Edmonds il either judge of this Court he H. not lie
Is either judge Of the Court Of Appeals he l. not lie
cannot hold the two Offices because the constitution de-
clares he cannot After further remarks from Mr.
Jordon Mr. White briefly replied and the decision of the
C0ult reserved