New-York tribune., 1890-06-01

trovcr.y. on the ground Il technical error ln the
ruling, of the ludsc presiding az 10" iHh u h',
Zen been -ugses;., that Jo fcr!lct Should o." -i
aside for ~u'h error uu'~- 10 'tn '' SHOWN 'i 'h'
crroucou, ruling must have af"''d M result. "r
quc,tom- Of fac' mr. dcc.d-d lure-. tto r'" NOT"
I, taa IAN error in the oHm'>i'n or eye ,' & "i
ludy. upnu the trial. may boo tHr dl.'r.gn ~ in'
court which r-y~w- b.. bc d .rrg,rded I tni corr
{, 81 opinion that substantial Justice doe NOT rPu'
that new il.d should bee grantee. H9,a a D. ",,,
provision Il The prcsen, code '1,,t'Gn l"o u
tng ali verdict, by jury ihru there would be- f'w"r
ncw trial, granted. and the calendar Of The COURT
have once been disposed Of upon their merits, 'nd
the number of ca-"- up"n me cn'nd''a 81 TN ~
pclatc courts would Dee diminished.
As 10 whether or not amy change IN The courts
Of the city OF Nrw-lorl was desirable. Judge
DAILY said:
suggestions have been made at interval, ioohn- -
consolidation of the supreme tour'. the >dp"ii'r
court and The count of common ilri' "i 'it 'l.,
might nccrIc 10 the bar hy havu- all tlt JUDGES ~
these courts made member, oi one '"nri Instead 81
their being a. ~ pc-rnt. divided un'n- TIRE" lad'
pendent tribunals. The chct objection I" 'on-"'hh
lion Il that II deprive, thc people q" ANY choice .i
tribunals In The settlement of their dispute. NJ
present a liri.aut ha, h, choice between thc supreme
iourt the superior Court and the Cont of Common
Pleas. each Of tllo.r court, pp,'',,hs '4ni Po"T,.
authority and jurisdiction over depu''- htl'ns III VIC
city Of Ne" I"r' "r concerning pI"P'tM th,tr, "'
whether individual or c"fF"rniou'. II Tor all ,a'c
.ultor lS satisfied that hic can Dee more sails
ftrtOrllV and speedily dl~lt'-ff bl m DIV '"uI lHhH "
II Utiganis wish 10 submit their controversies to one
court rather than another. they can nave ,hc ,ourt
they prefer. 80 one court has monopoN ol ,hc
extensive aud salutary power, welded by ne VI
dietary over the persons and properly oi the 'rI'h'
In q great cts Ike this. where the whole financial
and corporate business Of the country centres, ana
divers Interest, 81 the create washl'nhr are con
rrcg,cd II Is u ihc utmost Importance dnl There
should be several independent tribunals for The SET
tlemcnt Of dispute, thit Mt nually ar - That neco
,ity has created the three courts have named. and
established their 60 equal jurisdiction and lnd"pcn
dcncc The system has grown "th inc Growth ana
nm poriaucc OF New York City during III" last half
century Consolidation Of courts mean, dcpnying the
soIidntcd there viii De- but tribunal. and al suits
must be brought therein. In the matter "i actions
several tribunals, and il was intended by The Con
,ttuton that he should have snch choice the Legs
exclusive jurisdiction with respect 10 corporations,
Article 3 Section ,, OF the Constitution declares that
all corporations shall be subject to be sued IN aH
courts IN Ike manner ~ natural Persons. and the
right IS given to them 70 sue IN all g3nris o CON
extent nnllify' this Wholesome provision.
10 compensate for the loss TO the people hy consoil
da,ion the advantages ought to be made very clearly
apparent Iut this is not easy: II thc courts are
consolidated. there remains bat the same humber 81
iudres who can DO no work than II performed Al
present The Disadvantage would be that the It'll
CANT, would lose the benefit Of the distribution Of legal
work The way 10 secure prompt and cihccn; action
is 10 distribute labor This I, now effected by three
superior city courts, each having us own calendar 10
dispose Of and assigning ils judges TO ' work hc"r'
them In addition 10 the d advantage already referred
To- there is the fact that under consolidation individual
res possibility wOuld DE lc,senci. with the present
system where litigation II distributed among three
cmrts II to ascertain by examination Of tho
calendars what each Is doing. and how FAR II is keeping
m with is work. Finally. the pr sent system prevents
any confusion 10 suOfs. Witnesses aud Jurors In
attending for each days business
There have been some suggestions that II the courts
were consolidated. and the nineteen Judges com
posing them enrolled one body. single
Judge could call the calendar for the day and ii,
tribute the business among the Othcrs. that ,
would be an advantage. Iut would IL n we say
that five judges engaged In hearing appeals and
it would result that the judge calling cases for
trial would have In effect twelve calendars to call
each day. These calendars at present in the
courts (wheIc each Judge calls his own average
twenty five ~ dav. This would make 300 cases
to be called by the Judge tO whom that duty was
assigned. In answering the call Of the calendar there
present at least one lawyer. client and one
witness on each side ~ a very moderate computation
making six persons tO each cause or 800 persons
altogether. 10 would require n building Us large a.,
the Metropolitan opera House to accommodates this
vast multitude and at the ordinary rate Of calling
calendars. hearing motions for postpOncmcnts etc., IL
would require about day two b. assign the causes
for trial the twelve judges, with their CLERKS ste.
nogInphers and officers meanwhile remaining idle and
this to be indefinitely repeated This does not
take into account the Jurors summoned for each
of the twelve parts. amounting to many hundred
moro persons.