New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-08-18
SUPEENE COURT-sPrcrAI Tgsx-Bcfore Jssse HoosxvEL
~ TIE nATTrR or wiDrsIsG WHITEHALL ST.

SUPREME couRT-srrcr.r Trsx-Besore yas,e aoossvrL
~ TIE BATTER or wiDrsIso WHITEHALL q.
RoosrvHrr Jon looking over the list Of parties a.
sestea alleged benefit from the proposed Si1en-
bf 81 The thtet IN question fnf several nsnes nhet
tive Of relationship or affinity TO ne presiding 5e ~
Ct IL, lspt,rs of The Revised saiutts, X - 21
H. enacted smone other things, that no Jddge OF am
"Coai can si zach in any cause to whea nc party
cor Ia sbieh be Interested or 10 which he would o. ~
cuded from heing Juror by Of gunity
sa6inty 40 ether Of the parties Now, although not
i,ter.sfed unls the liability contribute in
ae form of ta1scn TO make up that part Of the
w.pt which IL charged upon the City Treasury can be
deemed 10 constitute such interest; am connected BY
Mod or marriage within the ninth degree-the boundary
preserbed for jurorwh several Of the persons whose
property assessed aud who by every just rule Of inter
psetsiioD must be deemed parties TO the cause Ia.
ks therefore, the section above quoted however inc)n
vspieIt in practice it may be, has been modified
pesed by subsequent enactment ! am prohibited from
sitting uag- in this The Constitution of
Of 1896 having entirely revolutonized the judiciary sys
tenn further legislation adapted TO the change became
Ieeessary and accordingly on the 18th Of May le47,
statute commonly called the Judici uy act posed
The esi section Of which departing from the language Of
the previous statutes, provides that 30 Judge of aoy
SCOUT tbs have voice in the decision of any in
(which he has been counsel attorney solicitor in
"the subject matter Of which he i interested thus
dropping entirely the oi elton Of consequently affinity
The question then arises that clause of the Revived
Ratu thus deliberately omitted in the act Of 1917, while
the rest Of the section containing II expressly
sraci.d intended TO be, considered az, repealed la
the Of Oakley and Aspnws before the Court of APP
peas % COmst. r.. the difficulty arising Of the statute
Of ~ Dot 10 have been considered, nj
vtrted The decision, therefore, authoritative
sc dent hardly be said to be conclusive, especially
the Court 10 effect equally divided, being four
nIet not voting. And great and frequent ia
s District must be the cmbarrassnents resulting from
e Iue Of exclusion prescribed in the Revised Statutes
wton Piled 10 limited number of judges that am in
dpcd 10 Lssitste before adopting il. Relationship within
the ninth degree either by blood marriage 70 at least
IersoD in extended assessment list is almost ineg
fable. la he present instance for example, discover
Two nsmes Of third fourth cousnsthe precise degree
rot Inow-by blood; and one name the party being
the hptbsnd Of lady whose sister, deceased, was
~bsn living the mother OF the lady whose husband - the
pYe,idng JudgeJ that of an nnce in By mar
Rage No oiecon it s tue on tbs ground was taken
The argument the Court then aware of the ex
isttree OF the culiy If the decision however IN the
OAKLEY and AspDwa case il an authority, even an actual
IequesI s made by the unsuccessful party would not
save the Judgment the charge of VALIDITY unless az
aeedy remarked Of 1887 is 10 be deemed in that
nsrec modification OF the previous law. N the point
we discussed the Argument shall suspend de-
ciso until the counsel both sides shall have had OPP
perfunfy Of submitting any suggestions oral or written
in regard TO il which they may deem proper.