New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-03-27
,r.ss OF having Judicial exposition OF the stat
~ bS he highest tribunal In the State, a. speedily

,r.ss of having Judicial exposition OF the stat
.ss bv the highest tribunal In tho State, a. speedily
~ spencer observed that the Law was such tia.
sAsye was no MODE OF bringiog the question 70 n
Ssedv decision, other than that OF having a
I,smptory mandamus awarded, on the motion
u - counsel for the reistor For, as the
(cmrt well knew, at a spsclei Term a formal
xsmuuer could not be lnteroossd, without car
sSips the cause over to the General Term in this
nstrict which does not ait until May next and then
= misht Iot be reached. Proceedings on mandamus
sre by section Of the Code OF Practice wholly ex-
s,uded from its operation and the practice and pro-
sse6ings we're therefore To be regulated the laws
a force at the time OF the passage Of the Code.
= that Practice an alternative mandamus could
- made Ieturnable at Special Term, and
~ tAs coming in OF the return the relator
ron the facts, which would render trial
- luy necessary; or he might demur
sarsonally, which would carry the TO the Gen.
ri Tern, rs already remarked and either Of these
lor pereDptory mandamus Buff this motion was
depied, he could proceed NO further; he could not
trbs error on the decision But II the motion was
srsnted, then the Couu ailo sed the defendant 10
sjucsmens, upon which error could be brought. Mr..
1reiened TO WeDdeirs Reports, $50; 7 de-, 474;
tdo 1870 % do $50, as containing the decisions Of
1he Supreme Courtsnd OF the Court Of Errors, to the
eject stated by him. Ii impossible therefore, to
snan the object ofa speedy decision OF question Of
meat public importance unless he permitted the Court
6rshder pro formd decsic q, that perempory man
d0us should issue. OF course he could not consent
70 such decision, and he was ready, II the Court
desired, TO proceed with an arsument to snow that
Ne alleged contract on which this draft was given
was incomplete and illegal, and would not justify the
dsft OF the Canal Commissioned upon the Auditor,
DoF the issuing of his warrant by the Auditor to the
Treasurer for It's payment. Bat II seemed TO him,
that both parties avowed their intention Of obtain
big tie final decision of the Court OF Appeals in any
event however gratifying to us all and to the com
Duniiy generally to have the benefit of the Courts
views the subject able and learned as they GER
tainly would DO, yet discussion and an elaborate
opinion would be butt consumption Of time and labor
without any compensatory benefit, and would neces-
sarly thro the decision the present term and
while he objected in behalf OF his client to the Courts
awarding peremptorv mandamus, yet he was com.
peed to say that there was other course left TO
attain the object of speedy decision.
Mr.. Wheaton having expressed his concurrence
IN these views said that OF course he could ask for
nolhiDg more than peremptory mandamus. with
The unoerstanCiD ing that every facility would De given
70 enable The defendant TO carry the question to the
higher tribunal.
His Honor Judge Pratt said, substantially, that
ne case was presented to him, he did not perceive
What good could result from a heightened discus
sion by counsel, and careful opinion by the Court,
md that without expressing ary opinion on the mer'
IL OF the case, no would, pro forna, allow the pre-
euptorT writ while he doubted whether the Court
Of Appeals would hear an appeal until the cause had
some through the geDera term, and that law would
81 necessary to insure hearing at the presentterm
Of that Court
A rule was accordingly drawn up and entered
NE defendant to make up record, and a stipulation
was given BY the counsel for the relatOr that all
pYoceedings on the writ should be stayed until the
frsl decision OF the Court OF Appeals.