The New York herald., 1874-11-11
Important Decision by the Court
of Appeals.
The Suit of the Old Inoumbents
Decided.
THE NEW MEN SUSTAINED.
Judge Johnson's Elaborate Arguments on
the Law.

.wn In the Court OF Appeals to-day
Bernard Wenzler, plaintiff In error, w. The Peo
g, defendants in error-Johnson, Judge.-The
dgment OF the Supreme Court In this cause cam
T,ot be a1frmed save upon the basis OF the const-
ootionality OF the act OF the Legislature entitled
~ An act to secure better administration In the
vfpohce Courts Of the city OF New York." being
chapter 5SS3 OF the Laws OF 1878. The act is as
sailed upon two grounds, OF which one relates to
the extent OF the legislative authority and the
other TO the form OF its attempted exercise TO
MAINTAIN !ne first OF these grounds IT Is insisted
oy the plalntlu In error that the constitutional
provision adopted In 1870, article g. section Is, in
tne words-"Justlces OF the Peace and District
cities IN the State In such manner and with such
powers and ior such terms respectively as shall be
Police Justices. whose appointment Is provided for
by the act in question.
To maintain the second ground It is insisted
that the act in question Is IN violation OF article g.
section 10 OF the institution which provides that
''No private or local bin which may be passed by
the Legislature shall embrace more than one sub.
ject and that shall be expressed IN Its tlte.n II
neither o. these grounds suiice to establish the
sne mnss be O. msd
The first OF the questions presented has been
discussed at great length and with Infinite re-
search and much ability, carrying the inquiry as 10
the history of the office OF Justice OF the Peace and
as to Its nature and functions back to the period
fourteenth century. Interesting as,are such conse
quences, we are inclined to think that the mean
ing Of the language employed by the people OF this
State IN 1869 TO express their will, IN respect 10
their judicial system, does not demand OF us to
follow their nne OF examination. The frequent
Of the numerous written NC constisu.ions aIiIs
United States have made familiar the principles
OF exposition applicable to those instruments.
Among these principles the mos. obvious Is that
who have adopted them must be deemed to have
employed the words IN their natural sense and to
ogden, Wheaton, 1851. Applying this principle
TO the clause IN question we hnd that Justices OF
elected in the different cities in the State but we
are not furnished with any definition OF the terms
employed-an of1cer named Justice OF the Peace
has existed In the State quite from the beginning
OF the State government. This officer has always
been known by by mat legal designation and was
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
has always been as distinctive title Of an ONCE
as the title OF Justice OF the Supreme Court. II Is
not descriptive OF junction, but name OF q par
ticular oice 1t Is like the name with, which it
y coupled In In TINS same clause, DISTRICT Court
title and not designated by description Of their
mncuons This Is made clearer by the latter part
M ae aacS same ann wca M o na te
served by law, which, of course. leaves their unc
tions TO be defined and limited at the
ture. The meaning is made still palmer, both
Dy the clause which follows, and by that which
preccdes. GAN other judicial officers IN cities shall
be chosen by the electors OF cities or appointed by
some local authorities thereof" THIS s the fol-
lowing clause. 1t describes class Of local judicial
officers, and cassifies them not by their functions,
ciares Justices OF the peace and judges or Justices
may be removed IN q specified manner In tins
clause we have one set OF officers designated by
many oshers under desisnaton and
not title OF ONCE, as Judges or justices
Of Inferior courts not OF record. All these con-
alterations point to the conclusion that the terms
'Justices Of the peace" as used in the constitution
are TO be referred to an ofncer known by that
title IN law. At the time this article was adopted
there were, so far as we are advised, no officers
entitled 'dlstrict court Justices" except IN the
city OF New York, and In that city there were no
officers entitled Justices OF the peace" though
In other cities ocers OF that title existed by law.
The clause In question Is not TO be construed as
requiring such of1cers 80 be created in every city,
but only as providing In respect to them where
they did then exist or might aiterward be estsb
THE OFFICE OF POLICE JUSTICE
had existed in New York for many years anterior
TO the adoption OF the constitutional provision in
question. Under that name II was established IN
1913 chapter l5s OF the Laws Of ls4sl, and six
were to be elected, one IN each of the districts
ceeded Ly that statute to the power aud jursdic-
tion winch had previously Deen vested IN officers
e entitled Ss Ss;k FOR a1d s ns Rssss
IN tns City 81 New s eaos
act the city was divided, a court to be called
The Justices Court of the city OF New York;
and IN each district there was to be elected JUS
tices' Courts and the Justices thus elected sue
ceeded to the jurisdiction which had belonged to
Known by Ssn the D Name a oi Associate '09uss JUS
BY s u wnsh aa a ns
and jurisdiction OF these officers were clvu en-
ttrely. The name OF these civil courts was again
changed by another act OF the same year Chapter
27e OF the Laws Of 1s4s to that OF .'rhe Associate
Justices Courts OF the City OF New York." and SUBJ
vas again Changed o co9r s
which name they are mentioned in the constitu.
tional amendment IN question. ?.
Now the office OF Justice Of the Peace has al
Ways been possessed Ql two ojurisdtctions-the one
sy sgSonsd actin and ID Limited
pQmng them amoug other of1cers empowered
TO preserve the peace and to entertain criminal
complaints. At It's origin in the colony Of New
mai jurisdiction was the principal, and. perhaps,
exclusive function Of the Justices Of the peace;
but at an early day in the colony civil jurisdiction
tion had been the most important feature
office has for many years been The rule and the
distinguishing characteristic OF the ONCE Thus
mas It been k1Swn 70 the stsase Law ana 70 pop
between Justices OF the Marine Court OF the city
Of New York, the Assistant Jusuces OF that city.
Albany the Justices OF the Justices Court OF the
city o hudson, and justices Of the peace Il X. s.,
Dedae scon s to reese the
Bame distinction. No CONFUSION Of terms, no inter.
changeabe use OF names IN respect to these
Dnlcers has ever prevailed. The justice
pf the peace has been y definite legal
entity. and has not been confounded with
police Justices nor district justices, assistant
Justices. Each has been referred to IN legislation
by the appropriate title, and the name oil neither
has been used to designate the otner. Under
these circumstances l see no reason to think that
the provision OF the constitution was intended to
mean anything different rom what 1t says. II has
EMPLOYED the definite and certain names OF par
ticuiar and existing oicers, Justices OF the peace
and district colrt judges, and there Is nothing IN
the subject matter the context either to REQUIRE
or to warrant US in departing rom the plain sense
nnd import of the terms used, and more, the argu-
ment is strong that By Justices OF the peace
were not meant o11cers having part only OF the
authority OF Justices inasmuch As District Court
justices have their civil jurisdiction and would
have been included under the designation OF JUS
tices ot the peace, II these terms bore the sense
cOntenQed lOr by the plaintiff In error.
THE SUBSTANCE OF AN OFFICE.
II IL suggested that the construction thus far
upheld IN the judgment appealed from is an
evasion OF the constitution, and are referred
TO IN which IL is said that the Courts will look at
che af nm