New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-11-18
THE POLICE JUSTICES BILL.

! JUDGE LlTIiEHoRE PRoNOUSCEs II CONSTITUTIONAL
| THE INJUNCTION AGAINST TIE POLICE JUSTICES
| DISSOLVED.
Judge Robinson of the Court of Common
Pleas Nov 3, the application OF Police Justice
James L. Coulter OF the Seventh Judicial District,
granted temporary Injunction, restraining Henry
Murray and tie other members OF the Board OF
Police Justices from taking any steps which would
prevent Justice Coulter from dscharsng the duties Of
his Office until January l. 1873, unless final Judgment
we're rendered meantime In the action OF Qito
uarrunto pending and Judge Robinsonlsssued On
order to Henry. Murray and the other defendants,
TO show at special term OF the Court why tho
temporary Injunction should not be made permanent
The argument upou the order to show cause was made
before Judge Iarremore, and lasted for days.
Yesterday the Judge rendered decision dssovng the
temporary injunction, thereby supporting the Police
Justices bill as beng constitutional Tie question OF
consiitutionaty is however. being further tested in
connection withthe proceedings OF the Court Special
Sessions. f.rVIn t.I ~
Judge Larremores decision cites that the plaintiff,
Coulter alleges that at general election held Dec. q,
1852 was elected TO office Of Police Justice for the
win Judicial District for the OF six years from
Jan: /, 1870 OF which election certificate was issued
sad entered Sn '1 aSon o re seharge Of bis Se thai on
Feb H. 1879, tho upon the reiai 0p of
SG as TO Try pa apiG sS Of
lice to which Murray claimed no was elected that snid
suit is s pending. II IA further alleged that the de
iendaus have unIswfuy oontederated together to In
tefrupt the plsnIn IN the performance 0i his duties
that defendants have threatened TO 90 SO by
force and violence; wherefore piainuu asks the
judgment OF the Court tlat defendants be en-
jon ed IRON dong said acts until tle expiration
OF his term. The question might here De raised
whether criminal conspiracy has not been est2osheu
Tor which the Law has provided an adequate remedy,
but Opposing adayts explain the real positions VI the
dieuuants. '
Dendapts alleee that by the act OF May IT, 1879 they
are legally entitled the office Of Polee JusceshaV
ing been duly appointcd1nd they deny that pantIn
aPohee Justice. The equities are tus az prVauy oe
MED as though answer had been inteIpo5eI fiahun
has not traversed statement OF thf deeaoant as 10
their appointment under said act. bnt insists that the
same, TO him, Is unconstiiutionM and ,Yod.
the character of the office which p!anun seeks
To- retain, VIZ: Is u Police Justice consitutlOnal
ONCE within the pnrvlew aud meahing Oh tae
Constitution Of 1861 When the convention uet 70
frame said there existed special ana assist
ant Iuaii cs appointed by the Common connIh IN the
spesi and justices were excepted and ther
lurisd ton and continuance LETT TO the acuon oI ne
law Thus from beng permanent onicers ney were lo,
as appvintvo officers subject ~ legislative ecuo sum
&C lon was taken March 80 lsis whereby 'he terms VI
said officers were abridged and offices aDohshcd
ny the act OF March ~. lS4s. m wps direcca ss Que
police Justice should be elected for me term oI iour
years. 70 perform the duties OF special justice winch
9th Was abolished. THIS 10 tho rst statutory mention
Of the office OF Police Justice. Subsequently, eSlsliuun
Increased OF Judicial districts ana ON Alrii
s 1852 the With District provided Tor unaer 1s
act plaintiff claims to have been elected such claim
has no legal foundation far as t Affects tins apphca
tiob. IL he had been In possession OF consIntionai
oice on Jan. 1870 be would have had legal rsh 10
hold the until the exmratlon VI The term tLrrool
The act OF May II, 1878. repeats those OF March
w. Iste sn1 ApyD W. 1884, by impheausn'