New-York tribune., 1884-01-28

the court proper and the commission tean o do
1o hD 1{ tbst ut the dSes making up the commsson
should be chosen from the supfe,ne % york noiwth-
standing the increase in their number II me- nno ", aTe
number win enable the Sr1 own cases especially at
General Term that viii be the most si me coromis
sion sbould he chosen from the eminent lawyers
of the State by the Governor or ny tne coneniou' '
lion nerhans of the Governor and the court
MR. PERRIN SUGGESTS MORE JUDGES
F. O. Perrin the Clerk of the Court, said that he lad
Thought for number years that the most effective re-
lief would be secured by an Increase In the number OF
iud -es from the present say 10 twelve II would
then possible by system OF rotation to have seven
OF the Judges in constant session. while five of them were
off writing opinions. In this way no one OF them W9nd
be ovcr0orcd and yet great many more nases could DC
during an argument would Join In the decision but al OF
the twelve could meet together for Important CONSUL
tatiOns.
MR. vANDERPOEL PREFERS A COMMISSION.
The views OF several prominent lawyers OF this city
obtained. Aaron J. Vanderpoel said: g think
that the Constitution should be amended that at GER
tain period say in ten years commission should
be appointed by the Governor aud Senate TO hear such
cases a may he assigned them by the present court
fixed by the Legislature. To take these commissioners
from the Supreme Court Bench would simply reduce the
working number and force Of that court. This would
be apparent that il would be- made the excuse for
increasing the number of iudges in the Supreme Court
There is also great embarrassment in the suggestion
made in quarersthat the Chief Judge should pre-
side the court and the commission But II that
could De accomplished would he very prudent meas
ure his presence IN both courts would enable him 10
advise whether the question pending or had
been too recently decided to have been reported and
brought 20 their attention.
"This Is by imaginary difficulty,
for there were conflicting decisions made
by the Commission OF Appeals and the Court
dicnlty nirbt NJ cbgjotcd Nv oIIoiat Inc presrn
Of ~ ps
should preside the stngs OF the commission. do
believe in further limiting he jurisdiction Of Tie Court OF
"It was a wise provision by which parties appealing
peaIne To- the Court ef Appeas to spuIae fr Gnal
Judgment In the event that the court did moi hd error IN
original iuridctiou perfunctory labor Of going
through long trials merely to get the case again 10 Tue
the same evidence which the first appeal had been
'''' SUGGESTIONS BY MR. LowREY.
Grosvenor p. LOwrey said
al think The relief to the Court of Appeals must come
from limitation of the right of appeal This would be
accomplished by cutting OF most of the appeals from or
dels and by limiting the amount in final judgments 10
appeals. Inasmuch however many practi-
caly disposed OF in ineTlocutOy proceedings, woud
think proper that there should he the right of appeal
whenever the lower snoudcery that by Of
lack Of precedent novelty in the questions involved the
requiring TO be determined by the appellate
court.
"As TO limiting appeals by the amount involved. think
it sOphisTy say that in all where the judgments
are small they judgments in poor mems cases, and
that 10 make this limitation IS 10 discriminate against
on general class Of -s, would he found 10 affect
rich men than poor men,
"Ihc chief value OF decision appeal does not lie in
IFS ccc, upon the individual tcGnt but in the fact that
If clear precedent Is established by 1t all of the
people of the state conform their action to H.
tion becomes one OF public convenience. The dii-
ference between judgment Of a doiibcraiye court,
ment Of the Court of Appeals is nat the atoris the last
Judgment 0btanabie know o no presumption that the
that equal learning care and attention are EN-
Ployed by each tribunal, would, howe,er' al
person or character and also in an cases wncre
could think be brought about without change IN the
tbe inHtiy OF new cases were substantially limited as
have Indicated the Court Appeals woult be able
to itself and gain control OF its calendar
- | am opposed incr asng the number Of Judges in
the Court Of Appeals upon any theory have heard ad
vanced. As 10 the supreme Court JUDGES sitting with
the Court Of Appeals Judges ana toi1nug more than one
coar,--t would, fear, be somewhat like employ
ing three doctors for sick man., each 10
aud being quite free 10 vary the treatment to
suit his notions without responsibility 10 his asso
avn also opposed to dividing the be heard
by different Judges for that would introduce still greater
at is more important to business man that he
law should he Absolutely perfect in Itself Whatever
therefore introduces uncertainty or confusion into the
10 decide appeals among greater number Of judges or
among different would have that effect"
LEssENING THE VOLUME or LITIGATION.
Ex-Judge William H. Anoux said that lac WAS in favor
OF increasing the Limitation OF The amount appeals TO
the court of last resort TO 81 600. But radical
and in the end complete relief he continued,
"w be obtained by general codcaton OF the law by
which the volume OF litigation in my judgment will be
diminished, and the law made much more certain in
it, administration that the Court OF Appeals will affirm
1cof of tba hplO mor
they now do, and therefore suors will be content
to abide By the decisions Of the trial courts or the General
Terms.
"Ibeleye that the adoption OF these two plans would
diminish the number OF argled IN the Court OF Ap
peals more than one-haf and this would enable
the court thoughtfully to consider and
carefully weigh their opinions than they
now able TO do. l do not think that there
ought to be restriction appeals from orders. The
Court Appeals by tanning appeals from orders in the
gree from the powerof our corrupt judgSs 1t would be
and what lengths those judges would have gone, If
OF Appeals has relieved itself in large degree of the
onerous burden which such appeals might entail by
adopting a rule, have been informed, TO write no
opinions on appeals from orders where they affirm and
therefore only required TO examine and consult
the determination 10 be made IN such eases"
What would be your idea about increasing the num-
Der Of judgesT
We had this scheme in sense in the Commission Of
Appca with the present Court OF Appeals in ts
present organization Its tendency was TO confuse and
the profession. In than instance the
same question presented to the Court and tO the Com
missioners and they unanimously came TO opposite
clnsiOns IL is better 10 suffer some Inconvenience and
delay than introduce the elements OF uncertainty and
confusion that would necessarily result from change OF
the personnel. / think the result wOud prove that 1t
woud be unwise 10 divide the court and give different
character OF appeals 20 different branches. History
shows Us That the ultimate OF law should lie unit
qucstOlg OF evidence, questions affecting the
common rights OF all arising IN each branch OF the law.
and If We tolerated separate appellate tribunals We
would find in the course OF time that the courts under
their jurisdiction would not administer the law in har-
mouy with the other courts.
STRENGTHENING THE GENERAL TERMS.
Robert sewc SAID: 81 am opposed TO increasing the
amount in limitation OF cases in which II might be desr8
able to them TO the Court Of Appeals for il would
IL hil,, al