The New York herald., 1873-11-08
THE CASE OF THE NEW POLICE
JUSTICES.

tho Constitution q lity or Their Appoint-
ment.
The argument upon the consttutionality Of the
law under which the new Police Justices were
appointed was resumed before Judge Larremore,
in Court OF Common Pleas, Part l., yesterday
morning.
Nelson J. Waterbury opened the proceedings by
stating that he could not see anything the vast
aggregation Of papers submitted by the plaintiff
that can warrant him in bringing suit in the
nature or writ quo warranto.
The question Is, has the plaintiffs term OF once
been abridged by the Legislature, and was such
act OF the Legislature legal II PLAINTIFFS term OF
office has been abridged by legal act OF the
Legislature, then any action that can be brought
in any Court will give the plaintiff no redress. II
said act be unconstitutional, then suit brought
in the Supreme Court will sustain the plaintiff In
his position taken. Mr.. Waterbury stated that it
is only OF recent date that persons have disputed
the power and right OF the Legislature to abridge
the terms OF office OF those elected to Ill them.
give up anything very easily, yet the Legislature
shortened his term OF ONCE as Mayor OF this city;
obliged 70 relinqusn his claim.
MIR. Waterbury followed closely the line OF argu-
ment adopted by Mr. Eaton Yesterday, going back
the Peace, and tracing the connection and changes
undergone by that Office till that OF Police Justice
Mr.. Waterbury, in closing, said that the great
point that he desired the Court to consider was
that Mr.. Coulter was not elected to- but counted
into otice By fraudulent means.
BY the complaint the pialntin claims that he was
eec,ea s 10 lor Term oi Sax years ending az noon on
menced at noon on the 1st OF January, 1870. The
Court OF Appeals has decided tnat the judicial
amendment took effect from and included the
whole OF that day. His term, therefore, did not
commence until twelve hours after it took effect,
and he did not come even II he were-as he was
not-a Justice OF the Peace, within the provisions
OF the twenty-1ith section. continuing In office
Justices Of the Peace when that amendment took
effect.
Ex.Judge Porter followed with very powerful
argument OF nearly TWO hours duration. He COM
menced by propoundng the following questons:-
l. Are the ten justices Just selected criminal
2 Can they be convicted OF such crime with
out jury, on a motion at Chambers, on allega-
ti0ns founded on information or mere hearsay,
from person unknown. against afidavits made
on personal knowledge by those just endorsed by
the municipal authorities as men OF honor and In
tegrityS
5. Whether the only old Justice who was judi
cially charged by the late Attorney General with
originally getting his office by false returns has,
in virtue OF that charge, better title to the office
4. Whether Judge at Chambers can Issue an in
junction lorbidding ofilcers to obey the express
mandates OF the statute
5. Whether an onicer whose term, abridged by
law, has ended, can by holding over give himself
title 70 continue in oi1ice, which will enttle him to
the aid OF a Court OF Equity?
8. Whether Judge at Chambers can in such
issue an Injunction which the Court OF Errors
the Chancellor had not the Jurisdiction to dor
Z. Whether there shall be collision between the
coordinate department OF the government, on
the question OF the constltutonality of law under
which nine OF the defendants are at present eXer-
cising exclusive criminal jurisdlctionY
8. Whether that law is unconstitutionaI; both
grounds upon which the plaintiff assails It have
been decided adversely by Court OF Appeals
Mr.. Porter then gave a review Of the case pre-
sented to Judge Robinson. 1t cited that the de-
1endants were treated as individuals and not as
officers, in order that q false coloring might be
given to their acts and to convert rumored oiclal
conference into evidence OF secret and criminal
conspiracy. Plaintiff now claims as merit that
he concealed the facts, and sued them as individ-
against them personally, which compelled them
Ofncially TO dis0bey the law ne concealed from the
Court. The law under which defendants were ap-
pointed is presumptive tnat the title OF the ONCE is
with them. IL Is evidence more conclusive than
the fraudulent certificate under which Coulter held.
Fraudulent as 1t was that gave him title, and no
Judge could restrain him by injunction from de-
manding the papers and taking MS seat.
Coulter Is no more Justice, either de facto or
What are Coulter's pretexts2 one is that he has
suit pending IN the Supreme Court IN which he
needs protection.
Has not that Court power to protect hims why
does he come to the Common Pleas? Because he
has motive that he dare not avow. He wanted a
Chambers order in class OF cases too familiar in
that Court but new in the Common Pleas, where
the jurisdiction to exercise coordinate powers
has been but very recently conferred. All that re-
mains to be ltgated in the suit OF Coulter in the
Supreme Court Is the costs and the right to the six
years. salary to be recovered in a subsequent ac-
tion by Murray, with which the Attorney General
has no concern.
Couter's next pretext is that the Attorney
General Will not bring quo warranto in his favor.
The statement is lasided by the oath OF the At
torney General. Another pretext Is that irrepa-
rable damage Will be caused to books and papers;
but they not public property, and is not Coul-
ter merely a custodian OF them?
At two O'Clock a recess OF thirty minutes was
taken, after which Judge Porter closed his argu-
ment.
Ex-Judce Smith will follow upon same question
in behalf OIL the appointees.