New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-18
ONE COURT OR SEVERAL ?
THE PROPOSAL TO MERGE INTO ONE
THE TRIBUNALS OF COORDINATE
JURISDICTION
a QUESTION BEFORE TIE CONSTITUTIONAL CON
vENTION IN WHICH THE JUDGES AND
LAWYERS OF THIS CITY ARE
DEEPLY INTERESTED.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

LAWYERS OF THIS CITY ARE
DEEPLY INTERESTED
To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir: One OF the most important questions to come
before the Constitutional Convention about 10 be
he'd relates to the constitution OF the courts or
the city OF New-York. and n consideration OF
whether there shall be in New-York one court, or
several courts OF coordinate jurisdiction.
II is assumed that the Supreme Court OF the
State. in substantially ts present condition. VIII
be continued. and TO keep the city OF New
York In accord with the rest OF the State
IL Is necessary that there should be In THIS
judicial district a Supreme Court having general
Jurisdiction Of and equity. Ia there any reason
why this Supreme Court. properly organized. should
not be able to do al the judicial business OF this
city? I think It must be conceded that the answer
TO this question must be In the affirmative: ana
then another question ia presented. whether there
are any advantages in having more than one court.
whether a consistent system cannot be estab-
lishei which Will much satisfactorily and
economically DO the work necessary to De done
than the present system Of Independent courts.
WASTE or TINE UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM.
suppose the sole object sought 20 b. attained
Is the best system that be devised for the
prompt and efficient transaction OF judicial business.
that the interests Incllnations OF any judicial
officer sentiment in regard 20 a particular court
SHOULD not outweigh the pubic good. and that the
question Is 20 be examined with the object OF
getting AZ the best system practicable. The first
objection Is that the present system results In
considerable waste % Judicial time
The existence OF three General Terms TO DO the
appellate business OF this city Is clearly unneces-
sary In the Superior Court there are four Cen
eral Terms a year. consisting Of three judges That
General Term never. as fsr | am Informed.
lasts more than ore week and one day OF the
succeeding week. ana generally has n ca,eniar OF
thirty appea.s. The time Of three Judges
IL thus taken up in doing this modcum OF work
four months In the year. The work of the General
Term Of the Common Pleas is somewhat larger.
as IL hears appeals from the city Court and the
district courts but even that work could b. done
much more rapidly by tho same General Term That
hears the other appeals In the county. Neither the
General Term 81 the Supreme Court ror that Of
the Court Of Common P.els sits over two weeks Ia
a month ana It is perfectly apparent that General
Term organized with five or Fix Judges would be
abe 70 do all the WORK now done by the General
Terms OF the three courts
SO in regard TO the Chambers business Of the SUI
pcrior Court and Court Of Common Pleas. one
Judge OF each OF those courts ia assigned to thar
work. and II IS safe 10 say that II the work done
hy those two Judges added TO that done by the
Justice assigned 20 hold Chambers In the supreme
Court the addition would not be appreciate.
II can b. shown without possible contradiction
thai the Consolidation % the business In one court
would add at least two Judges to the judicial forcr
IN the city OF New-York
PROPERTY RIGHTS To BE sAFEGCAEDED
There ara other serious objections - the present
system Few members Of the profession appreciate
the enormous amount ~ money the safety OF which
depends entirely upon the care which the judicial
officers exercise In the city Of New-York. In all
actions % partition whore property ~ Infants.
persons - unsounI mind brnenclarles q trust
estates g. involved the safety OF the proceeds ~
sale depends upon the ~ the Judge who enters
IN" judgment Hardly judgment that "a presented
In such cases contains the provisions required by
law FOR the protection OF infants trust property
Most ~ the Judgments entered by consent or
on default and the attorney for the plaintiff who
prepares them ~ not Interested In protecting the
property OF the Infants others whom he does not
represent In regard to proceedings for tho sale
81 Infants real estate the appointment ~ new
trustees In place of those who have died or been
removed. the payment out 81 court OF money de-
posted In any OF the numerous actions brought
flr the sale " real estate or OF money deposited
I'm court under conformation proceedings. and prop,
crty In the hands ~ receivers and other officers OF
tho court; In all these cases the Infants creditors
and others arr helpless and unable 10 protect their
Interests AMI I, r. TO the Judge who has 20 pass
upon the judgments or orders 70 be- entered that
thcse wards Of the court must look for protection.
and when the money In court belongs 10 creditors
or others who have no knowledge ~ their rights
successful attempt to wrongfully get hold Of such
moneys may never be challenged.
The great mass Of this business IS In the Supreme
Court. but to give the same jurisdiction to the
other courts Is only 10 allow person who fails 10
get from the experienced judge what he wishes 10
90 - Judges VINO have not such experience. In the
hop" that the necessary safeguards viii not be In
sisted on. II Is manlfestly impossible for any
Judge To- b. able protect those Interested In prop
crty or money thus situated unless he has constant
,b. fpr
tcctlon for (, Is only by such constant experience
that there can BE- the necessary familiarity win
the provisions Of the COD. and WIKI the rules that
have been provided TO protect those Interested In
property held 10y the court. And II Is Only when
all these proceedings are In one court. subject 10
the supervision Of set Of judicial officers that
conflicting orders can De- avoided. and that appIica
tions to judge not familiar with the proceedings
to undo without calling 10 his attention what his
associate has done. can be put a stop 10.
THE ABUSE or MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS
Consolidation IL also necessary to prevent another
abuse that has grown mp. VIZ. Of making appll-
cation to court for relief. and when It has been
denied. going from court 10 court or Judge to Judge
until some compliment Judge Is found who Will grant
what others have refused This IL often done by
merely changing the title OF the court after the
papers are verified AMI have been presented to one
Judge and the order refused by him. This practice
is almost to escape detection. because the pa
pers only filed In the court In which the appli-
cation Is granted and the fact that successful APP
plicatlon made IL never except by the merest
accident called TO the attention OF the Judge VINO
had refused It. Occasionally. however. this sort OF
thing Is discovered.
So I'm the matter OF applications for the appoint
ment Of receivers and other officers IL IL frequently
the case that before a motion for the appointment
OF a receiver Is made or before action is brought
an ATTEMPT is made To ascertain whether the judge
holding chambers Of the court ut particular time
would appoint particular person IA such receiver.
II ne acquiesces. the motion Is brought on before
him. II he refuses the action ls brought In another
court And II often happens that the parties to the
action who have real Interest I'm the property
which the receiver takes. In the administration
OF the riIst-as In the OF insOvent partnerships
or corporations where the creditors the real
owners OF the property-the parties 10 such an ac-
ton are I'm this enabled To have their own re-
ceyers appointed and to deal with the property
OF their creditors without opportunity for the
creditors to have voice I'm the selection OF the
trustee who is to manage their property.
There is nothing that Is more denoraliZing 10 the