The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-01

mouy win its construction. II IL impossible to
increase the jurisdiction OF any OF tue Inferior
constitutional court in this country beyond the
reach OF legislative extension. The nearest ap-
proach to this supremacy 10, perhaps, the United
States Supreme Court. II the Legislature desired,
instance, and establish new court, over which the
Court OF Errors and Appeals would have ultimate
Iurisd ction. The jurisdiction OF this court before
Unconstitutional epoch susceptible of increased
authority by legislative extension, ana capacity
TO expand now exists III this court according to the
provisions OF the State constitution OF 1874. The
judicial history OF this state shows that prior
to the date OF our constitution that this court
capable or extension OF power and the legislative
enactment does not initiate against the provisions
of the constitution The phrase in the constitution,
''Au causes as heretofore" Is not descriptive OF
jurisdiction and does not point to any particular
subdivision OF causes. All courts mentioned IN the
constitution must be possessed OF their ancient
jurisdiction ana Il Is this jurisdiction that has
been placed beyond the reach OF legislative power.
jurisdiction Of the Court OF Errors and Appeals
Is extensioie, even had the Legislature
noaoe the sase IN Question do Ssae ao m eUaIr
the power OF the Prerogatye Court 1t Is granted
that 1t nas constitutional sanction apd cannot be
slorn OF Its power. lie held IL was not court OF
law aud equity according TO the Old English law but
an ecclesiastical court and not comprenended IN the
descriptive clause or the constitution so that 1t Is
clear control was exercised over the Prer0gative
Court by the Legislature greater than that exercised
courts. The Legislature has from time TO time
altered and regulated the power OF the Pre-
rORatiVe court III was originally purely
ecclesiastical court, but the Legislature brought
certain civi cases within its p nere A Prerogatlve
Court Is not ana never has beenI court OF last re-
sort, ana It's DEGREES c0nsequen lily not final. by
this provision OF the Legislature the scope OF Its
jurisdiction IL not In any degree curtaed, and there
Is no provision IN the act in question that conflicts
with the State constitution. The Chief Justice there
fore maintained that the Court OF Errors ana APP
peas has not an innexibe Jurisdiction, but such
jurisdiction AS can be extended by the Legislatures
ana lastly, that the Prerogative Court not a court
OF last resort. and has not been made by legisa-
tive authority. The motion To dismiss the appeal
should therefore be den led.
Justices Depue and Van SICKLE read concurring
opinions. The Chancellor delivered q dissenting
one The opinion OF the Chief Justice confirmed.
TINS litigation arises out OF the Vanderveer
Will case. II VIII be remembered that the Chan
ceor as presiding officer or The Prerogative Court,
decided TO admit the Will TO probate; bur appeal,
In accordance with q recent act OF the Leeisla
ture. Was taken to the Court OF Errors and
Appeals. where the Will be argued at the
next term, now tnat the Court has confirmed
the constituuona!lity OF the act giving the
Court OF Errors and Appeals jurisdiction over the
Prerogative Court in cases OF appeal The announce
ment that the foregoing opinion would be delivered
yesterday ana the importance OF the question aud
case involved drew a large number of the most
prominent lawyers Of the State to trenton, among
whom were ex-senator Frelnghuysen, ex chancellor
Williamson, Ex-Governor Vroom, C0rtlandr Parker
and Others.