The New York herald., 1874-11-15
MARINE COURT JURISDICTION.

Some three years ago Lewis Alexander claims to
nave deposited with James Bennett S.. 700, and in
August last ne brought suit In the Superior Court
10 recover the amount The suit, as Will be seen
was instituted subsequent to the passage OF the
act authorizing any court OF record to remove any
cause into the Marine Court at discretion OF the
ludge to whom such application was made Under
this act the case mentioned was, on motion OF the
PLAINTIFFS counsel. removed by Judge Freedman,
Of tns superior Court from that Court to the Marine
conrt. Forthwith the act was attacked as uncon-
sttuttonal and an appeal taken from the order OF
Judge freedman. The argument on this appeal
was heard BY the three judges holding the Supe-
rior Court General Term. during the October
It was Determined to near o reargument before q
full bench or the Court. This reargument took
w t S aas conr Judges
wnose order the appeal had been taken. Mr..
Algernon A & 8 sullivan sullivan appeared for the appellant
MI. sullivan opened the argument. He first
urged that the constitution OF 1870 continues the
Court OF Common Pleas and Superior Court with
jurisdiction and powers unabridged. Sultors IN
these courts had Il right to appeal to the General
Term OF the Supreme Court and Court oi Appeals;
but under the new uCt, II a cause was transferred
to the Marine Court, the suitOr would have no
way o. appea except at the discreet. q the Court
Ment Of the right OF suitors would he an abridge-
ment OF the powers OF the Court which could not
[.
addition, counsel argued that the recent act VIC.
lates the constitutional provision that mo private
or local bill passed by the Legislature shall en-
brace more than cne subject and it snail be ex-
pressed In the e." and the recent act goes to
alter the whole practice OF the courts as to ap-
Mr.. Mathew P. Breen on behalf OF the plain
TN, responded. HIS first point was that the
ACT OF 1874 !s unconstitutional in that 1t vlo-
iates section 10, article 3, OF tne State constitu.
tion which declares that mo private or local bil
which may be passed by he Legislature shall en-
brace more thf one subject and that shall be ex-
pressed in the tlte." lie next argued that the act
or impairs the right OF appeal. In discussing the
erst question he INSISTED tnat IT is necessary TO un.
aerstand and Keep IN view the object and lnten-
tlon 0l the Legislature IN passing this act. The
noject OF the Legislature unquestionably was TO
confer additional Jurisdiction upon the Marine
and sweeping jurisdiction 10 try every case. It
simply, coniers upon 1t the more restricted and
tain specified and dedned conditions-to TO
W.T. alnas rnat any court court OF record snail IN
Il is simply means pointed out Sy which a the sr Ma
rine Court may acguiie jurisdiction OF any case Of
whatsoever class or character, and makes any
court OF record the medium or instrument by
which such jurisdiction shall be conferred. The
provision in the act relating to 'any other court
the intention OF tue Legislature in the passage OF
that act might be carried out, and the general
purpose Of the constitutional provision IN article g.
section 16, is accomplished when law mas but
one general object and which is fairly indicated ~
convenient for the accomplishment OF this general
object to be provided Tor by separate act relat.
Ing to that alone, would not only be unreasona-
BILE, but wOuld greatly embarrass legislation. In
Court Appeals neid that the act lchapter ss7 q
1861 ITO enlarge the jurisdiction OF tile General and
and county OF New York" was not void BY
feaeon OF section 10, article 3, OF the constitution
although such act contained provisions applicable
TO all the courts Of oyer and Terminer in the
the Court OF Appeals, IN the recent decision re.
ang to the pulice justices OF this city, tnat .the
courts OF the city ol New YORK" is not uncon-
sutntional. although IT contains provisions abolish
ing the office OF Police Justice as 1t then existed,
and giving power to the Mayor OF the city or New
York to Substitute by appointment new police
Justices for the old, and the Court distinctly neld
wisdom may regard as conducive to the securing
Of better administration OF these courts may
was also held in TT the I'M matter @ Of Nv vaksDlns en-
lS2 n T.. ESQ., In an act "relaiye TO contracts by
ns Via o e ey o New Io wac
N behalf Of the city, but provided mat the power
70 revise and correct assessment isis, before
'be vested In the Comptroller, Corporation Counsel
and Recorder OF tue city," and these provisions
tect. ana that the subject expressed in the title.
The act has also been objected to upOn the
SQUIRT Of record may in its discretion send ey apy
action to the Marine Court. The same power is
given to any court of record in the State TO send
cases TO the Marine Court. Accepting the theory
that the act refers to every court record In the
State then 1t inevitably ceases to be O local act.
But lor the purpose oil maklng another objection
under the constitution 1t Is claimed that t is local
act, Now, IL IS either local act it Is not lft
be local act. then 1t has reference only to courts
pf record within tine city OF New York. If iL be
not 4 local act but has reference 10 courts OF
record outside OF the city OF New YORK, then it
tuitlles the argument that IL should embrace
only one subject,
Az TO the point made by the appellant, that he
% deprived OF an appeal TO the Court of Appeals,
he answered that the action was commenced SUBJ
scquent to the act OF May a. 1874 AUTHORIZING the
removal, and consequently subject to ITS provi.
nlOns. Neither party is deprived OF an appeal to
the Court OF Appeals. Tne appeal is nrst TO the
Marine Court, General Terui, and next to the
Court OF Common Pleas, General Term, and from
thence to the Court OF Appeals. There
ls nothing to prevent this appeal to the
Court OF Appeals the only prohibition is as TO
cases originally commenced IN the Marine Court,
and the prohibition has no reference to cases com.
menced IN other courts and removed INFO the
Marine Court Tor trial. SO that the defendant is not
deprived OF any remedy lie would have had II the
case had remained In the superior Court except.
ing, perhaps, hearing at their General Term in
stead 81 the Common Peas. In TACT, by transfer
10 the Marine Court he secures two General Term
hearings, one IN the Marine Court and another at
the Court OF Common Pleas, IN addition to the
fnrfher right OF appeal 20 the Court OF Appeals.
At the conclusion u the argument the Court
TOOK the papers, reserving Its ueclson.
THE KINGSBRIDGE ROAD OPENING.