New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-04-14
AIR EDISON NOT IN CONTEMPT
THE INJUNCTION wRoNGFULLY ISSUED.
ppc,sIoN OF THE GENERAL TERd-JUDGE BEAOH
ACTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY.

The appeal OF ex-Mavor Easoh from tno U'uvr
Indpe Freedman declaring him guilty oil cohte,npo
in disobeyng the injunction order restraining nin
from nominating Commissioner OF tuphc wo ons
and Counsel 10 th9 COrpof" t%e Supsrior Court
'I'he oninion written by Chef-Judge Seugwlck'
says: a. ..o ,r,rnc-
no in This case mad not legal power TO make IT,
The yaIidity exercise Of such power, Gil, pro"
csdure 1t Will be necessary tc examine Oily sec1 hr
277 COG and 772 Section 712 PROVIDES 5n% " the
court out OF and without notice and the partcu
Judge specially designated by T ma! t the cy
by Justice of Superior City Court witl.n .o V ~
where his court is located by the County JUICE OF .o
county, where the action y trsoe on INJUNCTION order
IS within tte meaning OF the clause that ns oeen t
the oaer rer in the case was County Judge but be-
cause he judge OF superior Guy court
But Il is held that section 772 did not embrace
orders respecting winch special proVislon ha1 tt
made in the Code. Section sos PROVIDED Iha ~
Injunction orders might he granted by the court III
which The action brought OF Dy Iuuse tnoiJIoj
That an orIcr of arrest must bo obtained from
Judge of the court i'll which the action was Pomu,ns
or IRON any county judge. Tho opinion pIocooue
No one can fail to that in these several cases
the limitation powers to grant the orders mas
made with some purpose that relates to the character o
ts rem DIV Ii special provisions ha oeeu piaccu
I'm section 772 at Of the general words tha nave
been given. would at once DE seen thV tneo t he
folio according to their own teriDs my ,ha NOV
OF them Dy intervening sections does ho' n"Ao 'N Ho
From these statements it is concluded that
section too contains the only authority lot tue
s ,an.," - va ,r,nt them TO Judges of the court in
which they are applied Tor and 10 county JUICES.
Therefore as tue SuI. Vi noo oS i'm tho rnncrior
: s th. mower of Judge Beach, a Justice of the
Court of Common Pleas. TO grant an hluhcton
o-Inr in IT, would depend upon whether lie was
conutv u'Ige The court decides that judges OF tho
Court of Common Pleas are not county jugs IoI
han at
ii'ne whole matter is summed up thus:
to bc clear til 1t the judge whO made the order
4. nj tne onntv lu,e of this county, did ue make
n az snch As the making OF the order was not
i. Hs i1 nc law rho annell,ni was MT bound to obey
a. & - nat ~, IN, cnntrI,Jt for dsrcgarng it. The
~, gu. VIC" ~ fr,n shnnd M. re- yerseI and an order
ORDER appo,1eu ro Ii dinrs with costs
teieu usui'SS"~ al lo - - o,,
A separate opinion, arriving at inc saiu9 conci"-
sons. was rendered by Judge lngrahahi' VINO S'io'
-. o., ,,,,,,n ,f 1919 n ,yas nrovided that all
10y .nS a ve n ers whose appoint
lneht Is no. pon - scb ritics toyI,s aud Villages
or OF some dNslon .eieoi ~ ~ III tsr,,ate Tor
authorizes se p a, a. o rnlie1 n tne C9unsel TO
the Coz pordtlon am 10 tne olcer "o ft ,o
commissioner OF tnD4c morhSi Of rn .I WoTs and
had provided mat Tue commissioner vi u' ~ p,. H.
Counsel 10 inc C3ipottIh sIIu No m voi,o for
such an o@er Oela of Tue CorG'ratoa Of the
CITY OF NoW-lura; IT, III t ~ crst,i fine ,dice of
Commissioner of Public Works and either app9ntel an
1nlivliia TO MI tn' ons o o h i m AZ the Lsis
lature o. Governor IN making tue al @ , , c, ~
Dchd!l OF Tue municua, o"i n, thsrDnre
. NJ ~ ~ Vork in aunolntnr me Go anis-
sier Of p1uc Works and the Counsel to the Corpora
ton acted. not behalf OF the municipal corporation;
hut unde the authority conferred on MN 10y Ie aet U
the Legislature designating MN as que oncer 10 carry
into effect the provisions OF the Cohsututloh
Jndge Inuraham declares that, acting in an
ovecufrve canacify being gifted W tn the right TO
~ IT,, - i,,creti9n and not beinr limited
NV durt TO the municipal corporation such as that
OF trustee. Mayor Edison was not anlenable to the
present case no question was presented as to the
character OF the act to be enjoined:
No right OF property was involved no damage to the
plaintiff alleged bring the action within any OF the
an officer on whom CONSTITUTION and the law had con-
cretiou. had acted OF was a9on. " aTt The cnrt NO
motives Inc reseh1Soh o s ~, I ne inv the
lueoGtio,' ~ aoS c. ~ we hsve seen one OF lie
reslonia , ~ ~ vested by the Constitution
and law in him That power is entirely distinct from the
judicial pnwer vested in the To hold that the
Judicial body coul inquire Into the motives o. t9 eA
ecuvc in the exercise OF the power conferred on nm
and control him 10 the exercise OF scn pOer %" p
TO transfer inc power lPo u n t rrnton 10 the
oSaut TO make an appointment from corrupt other
illegal motives would it claimed for moment that
such an appointment Yet the act Is not essentially
different in that case frvn me act OF tne Mayor VI ,e
city Of IN ihe c aysi GAR of the state in tie
tive acts vrsed W tue onga , nd hath arc beuond
eh ;oon aud fontro az the Judicial power
am Of the opinion therefore that the court, having
iurisccn of the subject OF the action. had no
bower 10 grant the injunction The order void, and
the respondent was not in contempt
Ex-Mayor Edison was found at his office in tho
Produce Exchange liuildiIg lie san that at no
tmc had he any doubt that when the question came
before Judges who were not influenced by political
ininnctions he said were issued for political con-
sdcrations to benefit faction. This decision
would end the matter. as he was informed by his
counsel that the other SIDE conld not appeal.
read the decision. If it holds that the Court Of