The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-23
IMPORTANT QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
The Legality Of One Judge Holding Court and
Disposing of Trial Cases in the Special
sessions-A Test Question.

case came up yesterday In General Term Su-
preme Court, before judges Ingraham, Barnard and
Cardozo, which opens very important question as
to whether one police justice Is competent to hold
the Court Of Special Sessions, and at the same time
raising the question 10 the constisutionality Of
the act passed by the Legislature in 1870 In regard
10 this Court.
1t came up In the matter or The People Of the
State Of New York vs.. John p. Davis which is
brought forward as test case. Davis was arrested
upon charge of assault and battery, waived his
right to trial by jury selected the Court OF Special
Sessions In which be tried tried before Judge
Bowling, who alone held the Court, convicted ami
sentenced to twelve months imprisonment in the
as s o
and yes terday came up Tor argument.
u OF COUNSEL n bep poR d T4T
insisted, first. that the proceedings had against the
defendant in and by the court Special Sessions
violation OF article OF the Constitution OF the
the Constitution Of the state Of New York; second.
Court OF Special Sessions was held Is In CONFLICT
with and IN violation Of article 2 section 10 Of the
act OF the Goth OF April 1870. as provides .n case
OF any disability Of either Of the two Police Jns.
S thee other u hG 70 S SSS it w sns s Ss sa ST
continues is repealed by the act OF April 1871;
fourth, that IN the event OF anv disability at
portion OF the OF the Goth Aprl 1870 must destg
s SoSr tSSs u d yases
ffth, that the evident intention Of the
o " vas ss ses sss sa s S
though the portions OF the act OF 3Oth April 1870
referred to, were not repeoed the PROCEEDINGS 90
existed at the trial OF defendant as was contem.
plated by the act 10 empower one Justice to hold
said Court OF Special Sessions. The mere alega.
ton that the other justice 'through dis
ability" Is not enough; the proceedings must show
law as well as or TACT; his seventh point
was that the proceedings do not show that any
nounced against SAID defendant to prevent the Two
justices assigned to hold said Court from being pres
@ a. s s sH % n %s his
said proceeding was clearly In favor OF the prisoner
and MS CONVICTION was therefore, erroneous.the
ninth and last point that the sentence OF the Court
was not commensurate with the nature Of
the charge, and was In no manner justified or war
ranted Dy the evidence Under each point cited
numerous authorities
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PROFILE
Mr.. ALGERSoN s. SULLIVAN, Assistant District At.
torney, began with reading the record Of conviction
and powers OF the Court OF Special Sessions. lie
then urged that upon this record the conclusive
mated the Justices Of the second and the Fifth Police
judicial districts to hold the Special Sessions and
saa Court Was the result 'A Of s%cS
billty' as the statute contemplated. II Is
81 ,Ss that the sod s90ps the
Legislature seem purposely to nave selected the
most comprehensive word, 80 as 70 meet every case
which could detan q justice from the Court The
statute above recited has modified by chapter
800 and chapter 43s OF the Laws OF ISL These
enact that whenever both OF the Justices now
designated by law TO hold the said Court OF Special
Sessions shall be unable 10 act by reason OF sickness
or disability shall be absent from the city. It
snail be the duty OF the Mayor &C.. 10 designate the
Recorder or CITY Judge to act In the
place and stead OF said Justices during the
continuance OF said disability or absence" Neither
OF these acts contains any repeating cause. They
Which, except as thus supplemented, remains In full
force, and Is the constituent law as TO the organi.
eaton OF said Court. IL has been argued tnat the
act OF $50, chapter SsS - voia ana unconsrfsu
Their provision for The government OF New York"
lnasmucn as this act Is said TO DO local
BIN, 1t must be judaed subject to section
10, article 3 OF the Constitution. provision
title OF the act. the Constitution provides that
mo local bill shalt embrace more than one subject"
IL Is CONTRARY TO the legal principles FOR testing the
vahuuy OF acts oil the Legislature 10 give 10 wOrus III
Inc wcrd .'subjecp' must receive liberal interpre-
lallon provision for governing IS one subject,
embracing details OF finance, police, administra-
siom Va yusiiSe &c THIS proposition establishes the
| Gus authorities. o..
Az inc close OF the argument the Court took the
papers, feserving ITS decision.
| SIMILAR CASE.
| The same course was taken I'm the case OF William
Huoei, argued aIterward Huber was convicted by
Judge bowling, at Special Sessions, OF petit lar
ceny, ana sentenced for Six months to the Peniten-
| nary. very nearly the same line OF argument was
! pursued by The opposing counsel the Court taking
| the papers, as IN the case OF DAVIS
Inc case IL 80 lar important that on itJ decision
VIII depend the continuance IN prison, under their
several sentences oil q large number vi persons or
l their UlecnarQe from DURANGO Vlle.