New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-30
THE COURTS.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE MARINE COURT.
a SUIT AGAINST RUFUS HATCH A GROUND OF DECISION
CONCERNING THE TRANsFER OF CERTAIN CASES.
In the case of William De Hart against Rufus
Hatch, she Supreme Court General Term has decided
the question as 10 the night OF the Courts TO transfer
suits to the Marine Court against the decision OF the su
peror Court General Term In the case OF Alexander ag
Bennett MT De lIat', mate in the employ OF the Pa
cifc Mail Company, Charged RJfus Hatch with SANDER
ing him in his profession ana thereby preventing his
obtaining promotion. He brought suit in the
Supreme Court aud claimed 100000 damages.
After issue joiUed In the case tho Special
Term at Chambers on motion OF the plaintiff.
granted an order Transferring the TO the Marine
Court under the laws OF 1872 1874 the first OF which
authorised Court Of Record to send suits IN libel,
SANDER assault and battery aud other Quasicrminal
actions TO the Marine Court, and the atter authorized
the transfer OF any suits whatever to that Court From
this order the defendants appealed
Judge Daniels TIE opinion OF the General Term.
In which Judges Davis and Brady concur. He reviews
the former legislation OF similar character. under
which cases were transferred to the Superior Court
and points out that tee laws to be re
stricted In their application ana holds that neither
those laws nor the laws for criminal cases
from one court tp another form any precedent for the
acts Of 1872 and ls74 Whether those acts are valid
must depend on the constitution lie dsposes briefly OF
the question whether the order 8ppealabe. and de-
cides that it afI cts subssnta right and therefore
an appeal can be aiken. He hollis that the objection
that the bill local and TIE subject not expressed In
the Charter is untenabe in which he agrees Win the
Superior Court in the OF Alexander against Ben
nett. He then the effect OF the provision VI
the Constitution There shall ne supreme Court nav
ing general jurisdiction law and equity the WOrus
imperativev ana positively establish the court WIN
most broad iu ~dctiou, bc exercised or dechcu
the Legislature might atlerward provide or eact'
or as that and the court combined should eject,
hut for the purpose all times maintained anu
preserved benefit of those who mlgnt be parties
70 controversies in law equity The Jurlsdc
on conferred included both the power and duty TO en-
tertain and determine al civil actions and parties have
the right require that to he done. The jurisdiction
conferred Tor benefit aud TO secure and pro
the good order OF State. The Legislature can
neither ahridge limit It's attributes 1t Is clear the
Legislature could not declare that II should have no u
rsdictOn class OF Yet there l. no suD'
santia difference between such law and the laws OF
and lS4 which permit the thing 10 be done by
the combined OF tine Legislature and the Court
The Court power dcCliue refuse the juriSdc
lion imposed on 10y the legislature Transferring "a
u places II bevOnd the the Court and iu
wolves a surrender OF Its Constitutional authority As
q case, II ceases 10 be what the Constitution
makes it.
Nor can any validity TO the transfer be derived from
the OF Of the parties Each is equally ent-
tied the right provided by the Constitution AFTER
the begun, the defendant has the right 10 re-
luire that the shall he heard and determined by
the Court Only where both consent can such a trans
Ter be male, for even constitutional right may bc
surrendered by consent The order should be reversed
and the motion Denied bat under the circumstances
without O. =. Buel for paiutf; Edwards Pierre
pOut for defendant.