New-York tribune., 1883-03-14

NJ DAINTY Sheriff The appointments made by the Court
were almost universally good and no judge would DC
likely to appoint q referee second time VINO hau proNeu
70 be incompetent The fees OF the sheIlH nt presen
made the Office the most profitable one In the ety. anu
the proposed law would probably increase the eheriu
income from $4,000 to 100000 more Ihe pil' was was
plainly in the interest OF the sheriff rather than oil e
public.
Presiding Justice Davis said that unless there were
some reasons for the passage of the law which he did not
know of, 1t ought not 10 pass. -,
Justice Iarremore said that he did not think uuee
ought TO make comment upon any proposed ee
which might afterward come before hlm LOT "'J' -,
ton; he therefore unwilling to express "4i' i
as TO the proposed bill. liz.
Justice Donohue said it was simply a question
whether the Court should exercise its discretion "
ing referees whom IT thought to DE compe0."
whether the work should be done by depuues VINO n'
no legal training with immense increase III 'o !"
come and fees Of the Sheriff II was plan, te % Jogo 60
soid that LAWYER cond do this better than one who Is
not lawver The bill II passed would TeHeve tne
courts and Judges of much work ana trouble, nt Is
was NOT good reason for its passage Durlg .he
ten wears the Judge addeu, not rs many rs ,VAc
Ia hs ears He believed that the instances oil lhproper
conduct the part of referees IN SUCH c"s's "oi0
Sheriff, Davidson preferred that the shefs position In
the matter should be stated by his c0nnscl Rather ln
bv himself Mr.. Cochrane, who IL one CT the httone!
for the sheriff said that there was general misaI
prehension as to the purpose and effect OF ths oi M
..ft1.l 4
sher's fees was commonly supposed do s o.i NV INV
not provide the sale should he made IN az cases % o5
the Sheriff. only where the parties to the acoh u
agree upon n certain referee III they preefeu tV Nv.
tie sale made by referee instead OF by the Sher o
could make consent 10 that effect ana the court
he hound 10 name the referee chosen AS mhtols
stood nj present the parties TO case had aDsoeH ~
voice in the selection of q referee Ana even nnso
they arreed upOn q referee the Court wOuid Tceueh
maine some one else The chief objection TO he IeSnt
svstem was that afforded security TO the oppcs
parties as TO the payment of the proceeds OF the
referee would not infreQuently keep the pr3cccus m
snch a sale for several months ana thch Wueh tno
parfie in interest proceeded against HIM TOT the
ZION of il they found that he bad squandeeu II anu
NOT responsible for the loss Where the parties 10 MY
case consented to referee. of course tls Wouu oo ~
their own risk But II not just that the sales
90 10 referee 10 whom they objected ana WHo lnI
subject their property to such loss III snch sas
made hy the Sheriff the money would De palu w. ,
promptly; otherwise the parties would he potecteu S
The Sherf's bond Mr. COchrane mentioned tne Ihte
Ed ward d. Gale as instance of referee frequently
enponted who commonly kept the proceeds OF sucl
sales for months and who thereby caused mncn lose rs
his estate was found to be nsolvent. Mr. Cochrahe
Thought that the majority OF the members OF tne new"
York Bar would approve the proposed bin .,o. ,,,
several real estate lawyers, 10 whose atlehtloi Ut
Corhrapes statements called, said that euch IN
stances as mentioned of loss from referees %
dnct were exceedingly rare; that the money psu upo
the making of such sales in most instances was aos'
immediately paid by the referees alter the uouu'
ton OF the fees and other expenses.