The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-04-30
the POLICE Question:
TIE QUO WARRNTO PROCEEDINGS.


ho0e0v0Rp MU8S3s
rhe decision Of Judge Davies dfsoivg The temporary
injunction which DO had granted against the new Police
Commissioners WA be found tho second page Of ths
mornings HnAID,]
sUPREMB COURT--SYBCyAL rERN
Before Judge Peabody.
APRu 2s-Ansher phase Of the injunction proceedings
against The new Commissioners Of Metropolitan Police
developed In an argumen. Dissolve the absolute junc
ton heretofore granted by Judge Roosevelt on the WITH of
quo sued cot by tho Attorney General An a
pbcaon to SET aside had been made ON Wednesday, and
an Informal argument had arisen thereon; and suhse
queny the hour Of O'Clock p this day liked for
more regular Argument.
There large number 0f pereoI present, rsanifest
ing much interest IN the proceedings.
Mr.. Noyes opened for the Commissioners He sa.d
that the case he viewed presented single sSal pro
position which no proposed 10 discuss with very little at
senton to exirinsic circumstances 1s question involved
was great one for would determine Whether by the
judicial power the legislative and large portion Of the
executive power should be parayzed II was a conliio,
between the different branches OF the government those
strictly subordinate assuming authority those snpa
rior An act had been passed by the State Legislature
organizing metropolitan police, and the power of tho
judiciary had been invoked to prevent the
law and now they TO whether the judicial
posiuon was 10 remain on the record Of the Court
necessary Tor him 20 refer 10 the complaint OF thu Attorney
General II was in substance what originally known
as me information under quo ,coyyonto, TO t the right
10 the possession OF office In proceeding
the Code, the Code being u substituted for the Rvf4ed
statutes, tho Revised Statutes being substitute for
Anne, regulating the proceedings of quo .oarrono and
that statute being smphcatop Of the Old common law
proceedings. This Information demanded that tho lie.
iendans be oused from the office Of Commissioners OF
Police and that the relaor (sr WOODY be declared emit
tied to hoid that office simply related 10 the uo
office exerci ed by the defendants and claimed by the
lator In other words II proc oding by party
Of office by passed by the legislature and pace
party in in violation OF the Tho complaint admit,
a the defendants are IN ONCE Counsel referred TO some
clauses in the complaint showing that ii-cf, show
that mis- was proceeding by party out ot Office as
laor against persons in Office, under OF the Lgis
ture and must be that the defendants In office be
cause quo Wdrran would he except the parties In
possession Of the office from which sought IN Gust
| them On that proceeding the injunction granted
which the defrpdan ked TO have dissolved. Coun-
sci read the affidavit Of the Mayor which the quo
yanto Wa issued. That affidavit shows that the relat IL
sustained in his effort to ihese Comm sioners by the
Common Council OF the city; and thus they had local
legislature striving break down act of the State 10
would be able break that act but whether they
would be able to delay the execution OF until could BE-
decided in the Court OF Appeals.
Judge PeabodyIs thai (Mayor Woods atfidav) strong
| evidence IN the CASEY
Mr. NQyes-That is strong evidence
Judge Peabody--What does he alego2
Mr. Noyes-Nothing but that he Is apprchensivc the
peace of the city may be endangered The simple legal
question 10 be determined by his honor whether
this injunction such proceeding this could be
tanned n aid OF quo UdyvonoS This injunction restrained
through the executive officers Of the government duly ap
pointed by the Governor, under the direction Of the Legs
hture the exercise OF the sovereignty OF the state. II
these Police Commissioners could be restrained the Gov
ernor could have been restrained from making these
appointments. .t.' t.. 70
Judge Peabodycan the Judiciary restrain the execu-
uyeS - ,. 81, .t,....
Mr.. Noyes-why not II this precedent Is supported9
II the Commissioners be restrained, the Governor
from whom they derive their appointment also be-
restrained. the judiciary could restrain the agents
This injunction restrained the Commissioners from que
ing riot aud from preserving the public peace wa
general principle that the courts take cognizanos
OF a case IN which the sovereign power Of foreign
county, or the sovereign power of the home county
party. Counsel referred 10 the Of the Duke OF
brunswick against the King Of Hanover In that thu
aid Of the English equity invoked against the King OF
England, and they refused to enisrn jurisdiction
the subject on the principle ~hsch IA. had stated.
suppose that during the bst war, maloonen In the
Council Of Revision had sued for injunction 10 prevent
the levyng OF tax for the purpose OF carrying on the
war, on the ground that the law uDconstitutona
would the courts have entertained ~ Certainly not
Council referred 10 the case OF Thompson against the Canal
Commssioners-2s Abbotts reports He contended that
on general principles this violation Of fundamental
principles and bad tendency bring the Judiciary into
direct conflict only with the Iegis Lure but with
the Executive Of tho STATE and not doubtful who
would fall IN such a case he proposed to show
by the code, that the power 10 issue nuIc,ons
enlarged by the CODE and a-o that injunction
issued In such this He referred to sections Of
the code ffom as 10 AL, commenting them he pro
oeeded. THIS, he said, was criminal proceeding. lie
referred W ID Blackstone, 3G3, aud " "a Johnsons
, onanosTy reports, 81 to show that 2,o
although II partook in part of the nature Of civil
ceedng so far as remedy TO the relator for the
fees OF ofoe Would Il, he asked, BE- contendcd that in
aid Of criminal sui, injunction had been issued
either before amer the oodef He referred 10 sections
2ls and 2Is OF that instrument showing that 20 obtain an
Injunction must appear by the complaint that the plain
ur h entitled 10 relief, would be injured by th. do.
ien' ants continuing IN tbe office. If shown that
the plaintiffs In this case, who the people OF tho
OF New York. would be injured then there light be an
inunc, ssued, but not otherwise. To show that the
code had not enlarged the powers the Judiciary In refe
10 njunctons, counsel referred Howard vs. Ellis
saniords Superior Court Reports, 37i Linden against
fflz "a Court Reports, $40. same against Hepburn,
Nail Company case, Howard, &c. This action produced
anarchy here at II prevented the Commissioners
frum keeping the peace; and II Mayor Wood Was not in
Office NJ Conms Toner, counsel Insisted be VIA not,
there was no power ~ preserve thu peace Of the city,
The injuncson was only then ancilary TO The
relief 10 be obtained In equity Proceeding. II WIS
only an aid 10 equity. Ia aid OF ea1to arrunlo 70
expe uHurper an injunction he claimed 70 be- entirely
insuch position that neither could exercise the Office
Counsel REFEREED 70 Edwards Receivers, D. Dwyous
ibss ,. ,ss $50 ana 80 ssos
reference 10 property for the Court appoint receiver
But he did not think that receiver could well be sTpnt
cd over the once q police commissioner Here great pub
DC interests involved. No person the now
stood could properly exercise she important Office q police
commissioner. The defendants could NOT DO II because
they restrained and the rcaior could no for he al
mits that he out An injunction, he repeated
beard o. IN criminal proceeding or ina Processing glr
common law. TWAS known under the ssatute. Ie
referred 70 the OF Montague a Lord Dudley veecy
SENIOR 3p6, decided in 175i showing tia; The Court had
rght TO grant injunction maDdamu inorrna
uon or on quo arTurto He also referred 70 the of
Holdersaf ag LANDER, G. Modern, I6, Daniels Chan
cery Practice, by Perkins sS 10 show that lnunc
ions do not grow in aid Of In cppo@on " criminal pro
eeeding. 70 rcynbanks Equity, Code on Information,
page x6, and also lle Johnsons Chancery Reports $40,
80, AGO and sol; Watson Sergeant ioi 8 Edwards'
chsncery, $50, In the Of Ts4an AT Gray, I'm,
Ns Did NOT these authorities, ho asked dispose of tho
Queeronf Was not entirely conclusive that by The Law
On he tTae Of New York such remedy this could BE-
pursued In Court Of Equity II 20, this ond Of
me case and this second experiment should be exposed
me judicial ecorn and conompi Il mcred He would not
mere discuss tho question cf the consttutonahty u tho
Jaw, but he would affirm that tho Court had no /
r.sht 70 grant injunction In this case.
ne would close his argument by citing tho words of
learned turst rs applicable 10 this asesWhen public
Iuncoonsry abuses his power by any act which bears
me community, his conduct exces attention, provoks
popular resentment and seldom fails b receive the punish
mont merits Should Individual be chosen for tho
victim little sympathy - created for his suherng, " ue
interest Of all supposed 10 be promoted by the ruin of
one The gloss OF zeal for public Is therefore always
nd ~