New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-12-14
THE COUR1S.
nr,1sIOSs- SUPREME COURT-GESERAL TERM

nr,,1sIONS-sUPRT,ME COURT-GENERAL TERM
The PeopIe err rel. ". Hill FOwler agt VIM II.
EHH-dcc CaTdOZO in his opinion ordering VerdctlOr
Is not dstiugushae from that OF The People agt Batch
eler 22 " y. 1881 The Constitution makes the Office ia
dspute here elective, hut 1t does not prescribe the
LENGTH OF the term hat leaves that 10 he regulated only
by the legislative will and when that Is so the duration
of the term NAV be altered by further legislation The
perod of the defendants term of Office as charged by the
statute Of March a. 1906 has not yet expired and ot
course there vacancy when the elector claims to
have been elected.
Judge Sutherland concurs in Judge Cardozos conclu-
sion INT MAINLY on the ground that the reaor could not
get up case the trial determination Of the ques
ton of the defendants title TO the once IN tne way nc
undertook to do IT, as appears from this There was
no election held for the purpose of cecng Justice OF
the Eighth Judicial District at the time the relatOt claims
TO have been elected No notice had been given of an
election for that purpose to the electors at large
The People Of The State Of Ne,oY York agt me CehTat
Railroad Of Netc,Jcrsep-Judee Clerke delivered the
opinion of The Court The decision the General Term
the demurrer to the complaint substantially declueS
he thinks the questions which arse on the issues eclteu
from the peadngs after the service OF the defendants
The only matter introduced at tile tral OF Lhe
issues which was not presented the demurrer is that
arising from the evidence given by the defendant Tor
the purpose of showing that It's alleged encroachhenS
set forth in the complaint, done with
Tho authority and under the license of the
State of New-Jersey But Judge Cerke decides tnat
could not possibly affect the main question: whether
under the treaty OF 1885, that State surrendered eXcu
sve jurisdiction TO the state OF New OTK over al 19
waters of the bay and river and over the lands covered
by these waters the Owwaer mark on the New-I0rk
side. This Court at General Term decided ts qes'T
license or authority from any source can defeat or
a6ridce the exclusive political Jurisdiction of
The judgment for the palntln should Dc anrmeu Win
costs. ,, i,
Judge sutherland agrees saying that the decision of
the General Term the demurrer may be considered rs
res ddjdicdta the main question, and therefore,
he cOncurs Judge Clerkes conclusions hough he dlu
n0t n cree in but dssented from, that decision.
johnson agt CirL-Judgle Clcrke, In his opinion, says
the ground which the paintn maintains that the eA
pulsiOn illegal and void, seems TO be clearly uteI
able. He was Undoubtedly entitled 10 a fair trial on
notice and preceded by written charges The answer o
the defendant and the adavits show that no was tired
No fiqpa
not only this during the trial he attended the Court
Martial and company meeting. Paragraphs 100 and ltl
puted that the Company COuTMartial had the power TO
expel but IL commended that the defendant as com
mandant of the egent dSapprOyed OF the senenceahd
that the dsapprOyal qualified and was communicated
under mSapPrehensiOn OF the power OF the AUutanl-
General the State. The defendant yielded FOR time
the Adutant-Generals order IN which he announced
that expulsion would be approved only when founded
upon general bad chariter or bad MISCONDUCT Inc euO
sequent order OF Adlt-Gen IOWIsehd aDlOGated lhis
order which in fact valid, ana lett the defend
ant free TO exercise his discretion ana ~ would not e
prOpe: Cor the Court TO prevent MN from gNliS que
effect 10 the recommendation OF the company Court
Martial If he approves Of IT. and deems such approval CON
ducye to the discipline and efficiency OF His regiment
IN nc Albert H. HOck-The proceedings IN TINS matter
were taken under the act passed Apnl H. 1850. The
relatOr was brought before the Police Justice dsOr
DERBY person. the ground that he had threatened to
abandon his wife Johanna, and had actually abandoned
her He was arrested on this charge and brought before
the magistrate, by whom ne examined. lie denied
the charge contained in the affidavit OF his wife. He was
convicted as prescribed by the statute before mentioned
and ordered pay $50 weekly TO the Commissioners
Of Charities and Correction for her support On the
appeal. Judges CardozO and sutherland decide against
him, because the statute provides that any appeal or
amendment such order shall be exclusively 10 the
Court OF Special Sessions, which Court may he compelled
by mandamus TO give hearing Judge tleIke dsseuts
rs the We was LOT examiner ~ ,he iIdI' am no one
except the husband who denied the charge. When an
imports an examination OF the accuscr or some Othcr
witness al The trial IN support OF the charge.
Notice 10 Lar StUdeatS.-The applicants FOR admission
practice required 10 be ia attendance u General
Term room tomorrow al p III