The Monmouth inquirer., 1895-09-19
FREEHOLD, NEW JERSEY.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1895
County Judges Act VOID.

Court. last week uieu du Ok1lAAOA NS
claring the VOORHEES, Elective Judlcl-
ary law, known as the County Judge
act, unconstitutional. Justice LIP
pincott, who sat with Justlce van
Svckel at the hearing of the case,
coneurs in the finding, but Justice
Maree. who also heard the case, does
NOT. He will write dissenting opin-
ion later. The syllabus of opinion
follows:
One-The Legislature may reduce
the number Of Judges of the Common
Pleas to anv number less than five
and may prescribe the qualifications
of the Judges.
The LEGISLATURE cannot abolish
the Court Of Common Pleas; but II It
Is conceded that it has such powers,
then so long as the jurisdiction,
which resides in the Court, is exer-
cised for the benefit of the people.
1t must be exercised by Judges APP
pointed as heretofore. 1t cannot be
bodily transferred to be exercised by
Judges not appointed as the Consti-
tuition prescribes.
Three-The Legislature cannot by
adding to or substracting from the
duties of given office, or by uniting
one Office to another, acquire the
right to appoint the officer in a man
ner other than that prescribed by
the supreme law.
Four-The act of June 13, 1896.
known as the County Court act, is
unconstitutional.
s.The act which is assailed provided
that the inferior courts of Oyer and
Terminer and general Quarter Ses-
sions of the several counties of the
State be and they are hereby abol-
ished,'n says the opinion; ''and that
a county court be established in each
of the countihs of this State to be
and designated as the County Court.
The Judges of the court are to be
members of the bar of the State and
are to be elected by popular vote.
1.-THE Justices of the Supreme
Court OF this State, together with
the Judges to be elected under this
act, are to be Judges of the county
courts, and any county court may be
held by any Justice of the Supreme
Court, or by any Judge of any of the
county courts. or by any such Justice
and Judge sitting together
ssThe following are the provisions
of the State Constitution which bear
upon the case:
q There shall be no more than
fye Judges OF the Inferior Court of
Common Pleas in each of the coun-
ties in this State.
after the terms of the Judges of
said court now in office shall termi-
nate one Judge for each county shall
be appointed every year, and no
more, except to fill vacancies, which
shall be for the unexpired term only
Article 6, Section 6.
Article Z, Section, is as follows:
Judges of the Superior Court of
Common Pleas shall be appointed by
the Senate and General Assembly in
joint meeting.
This was changed by an amend
ment to the Constitution in 1878, as
follows: Judges of the Inferior
Court of Common Pleas shall be nom
inated by the Governor and appoint
ed by him, with the advice and con
sent of the Senate.
Article 6, section l, is as follows;
The judicial power shall be vested
in the Court of Errors and Appeals
in the last resort of all causes here
tofore; court for the trial of i'm
parchment; court of chancery;
prerogative court, a supreme court,
circuit court. and such inferior courts
as now exist, and as may be hereaf-
ter ordained and established by law,
which inferior courts the Legislature
may alter or abolish as the public
good shall require
I'm view of these provisions of the
fundamentallaw of the State it is con-
tended by the relators that it is not
within the power of the lawmakers
4 If ho ri NJ
under the constitution to appoint by
and with the advice and consent Of
the Senate the Judges of the county
courts established by the act of
1895.
The case of the State VS. Engman
does not control this controversy.
All that the Engman case decided
was that Justice of the Supreme
Court was qualified to preside in the
trial of an indictment in the Passaic
Sessions.
s'The forth section of the act of
1895 expressly provides that Justices
of the Supreme Court shall be ex Off
clio Judges of the Common Pleas
or Orphans Courts and Quarter
Sessions. The dicision in the Eng
man case was put upon the ground
that the act of 1895 expressly provid
Ell that Justices of the Supreme
Court should be Judges of the Quar-
ter Sessions.
That the provision was not super
ceded or repealed by any subsequent
legislation; that it's validity had been
conceded by continued course OF
practice since 1866, recognized by
the Executive Legislative and Judic-
ial departments of the Government
and unchallenged by the bar and
that it was not open to controversy
under the rule which had been ap-
piled by the supreme Court of the
United States.
In an early case in which an effort
was made to start a question as tC
the Jurisdiction of the United States
Circuit Court, what was said in the
opinion of the Court with respect to
the Common Pleas, the Judge who
delivered it was careful to qualify
The Court then quotes what was
said and continues:-''It was not
necessary to the decision of the case
to consider whether Justice os the