The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-08-19
Supreme Coart-Speclsl Tsrns.
Before Hon. Judge Roosevelt.

AUs. t7.-m the Matter Of Widamx Whitehall
sty -RoosEvELr, j. On looking over the list
parties assessed for alleged benefit from the pro
posed widening Of tho street In question, End
several names Indicative Of relationship or aifiuity
to The presiding Judge. By one OF the chapters
the Revised Statutes, "a R s., 275), Il 10 enacted
among other things that " NO Judge Of any court
CON sit as such in any cause to watch he Is party
Or in Shich be = Interested or u which he would
saDguinity or affinity to either Of the parties"
Now, although not personally interested, unless the
liability TO contribute In the form of taxation to
make mp that part Of the assessment which Is
charged upon the city treasury, can be deemed to
constitute such interest, am connected by blood
or marriage within the ninth degree the boundary
prescribed for iurors-with several OF the persons
rule Of Interpretation, must BE- deemed rsies to
the cause" Unless, therefore, the sec ion above
quoted, however 1nconvenient in practice 1t msy
be, has been modified or repealed by subsequent
In this case. The new constitution Of fs4S having
entirely revolutiouized- the. judiciary system,
further Legislation adapted to the change be-
came ne cessary; and ccordngly, on the l2sh
Judiciary act, was passed, the sist section Of
which, departing from the language of the previous
statutes, provides that mo judge Of any court shall
have voice in the decision Of any cause In which
subject matter Of which he is interested thus
dropping entirely tie objection OF conssnguinisy
The question then arises, was tina. clause Of the
Revised Statutes (thus deliberately omitted In the
act of l647 while the rest Of the section containing
It was expressly re enacted) intended to BE-, or CON
sidered Is, fepealed2 In the case of Oakley and
AspinwaD, before the Court Of Appeals, g Comst.
R) the difficulty arising out OF the statute OF ~
seems not to have been considered or even advered
TO. The decision, therefore, - IN authoritative
precedent, hardly be said to b conclusive espe-
caly % the court wss in ef6ct equally divided, be-
ing four to three, and mot voting. And so great
rsssmeDis resulting from the rule Of exclus n pre-.
scTibed IN the Revised Statutes, when applied TO
limited number Of 1ges, that xm induced to hest
tate before adopting 1t. Relationship within the
ninth oegree, either by blood or marriage, to as
least Ore person in extended assessment list 10
almost inevitable. In the present instance for
ample, ] discover two names Of third or fourth
c0usins-the precise degree do not know--by
blood; and oDs name, (the party being the husband
Of lady whose sister, now deceased, WAS, when
living, the mother u the lady whose hu band IL
the presiding Judge that Of an uncle IN some sense
by marriage. No objection, it ts true, on this
court then aware Of the existence Of the difficulty.
II the decision, however, in the Oakley and Aspin
wall case 70 an authority, even actual request 70
sit made BY the unsuccessful party, would not save
the Judgment from the charge Of invaldi.y unless,
% sheady remarked the oct Of l847 is to be deemed
IN that respect modification Of the previous Law.
Al the point Was NOT discuss on the argus nent,
shall suspend Senision until the counsel on both
sides shall have had an opportunity Of submitting
any suggestions, oral or written, In regard to Il
which they may deem proper.