The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-08-29

NO MORE LAY JUDGES
Text Of the Decision Which
Qpholds the Law
Abo1ishing Them.
JUSTICE DEPUE's MEMORANDUM
All the Supreme Court Judges
Conour-An Opinion Will
Be Filed Later.
JUSTICE DEpUE's MEMORANDUM
sneciaI to TIC jersey citu Yeics.

TRENTON, Aug. %. 1S96-This is the
fun text of the memorandum filed yester-
day in the Lay Judges case by the SUI
preme Court.-
1.-THE act of March 25, 1896, reducing
the number of Judges of Inferior Court
of Common Pleas is constitutional An
opinion will be filed on or before opinion
day of the next term of the supreme
Court.
This memorandum is fled to give the
relator an opportunity to have the case
reviewed in the Court of Errors in NO
venlber next if he desires to do so.
IF a revision is desired the court
directs pleadings to be filed and an issue
made, which will present an opportunity
for such review, the case. in the present [
state of the record, not being review
able.
''The application for mandamus is de-
MED. All the judges concur in this
conclusion"
The act of 1895 was in reality the out
growth of an act of 1885, which was de,
clared unconstitutional. The original
act not only provided for the abolish
ment of the Lay or Associate Judges OF
the Inferior Courts, but it also provided
that the Law Judges should be elected
by the people, instead of being appointed
by the Governor.
The opinion of the Supreme Court in
the case of the original law was in effect
that while the Legislature might reduce
lI6 nuIHD6T OI TIE JuuS6S VI Int I'm
mon Pleas to any number not less
than five, and prescribe the quallilca-
tions of the Judges, it could not aboilsn
the Court of Common Pleas. 1t was neld
that the Legislature could not, by adding
to or substracting from the duties OF a
given office or by uniting one office to
another acquire the right to appoint the
officer in a manner other than that pre-
scribed by the supreme law.
The Legislature of the present year
passed a new act. however which is now
chapter 1872 of the laws of 1886. The title
of the act states that its purpose is to re-
duce the number Of Judges of the In
ferior Courts of Common Pleas, the
Courts of Oyer and Terminer and Cen
eraI Jail Delivery, the Quarter Sessions
of the Peace and the Special Sessions
Courts.
The first section of the act stipulates
that only one Judge shall constitute the
said courts, such Judge being the Law
or Presiding Judge, appointed by the Gov
Judges SO appointed shall complete the
terms of Office for which they were orig
inally appointed, and that upon the ex-
piration OF these terms SUCCESSORS shall
be appointed TO serve five years. This
did away with the original purpose of
having the Law Judges elected by vote
of the people.
The passage of the act and it's subse-
among the Lay Judges, who determined
to contest its con5titutionalIty to the
last. among those Dy WnDn1 II was most
bitterly opposed were Major. Herman.
Schalk and Michael Dedwith. Lay Judges
OF. the Essex Common Pleas. The con-
stitutional test Of the act of 1895 vas
made by Major Schallx who, 1T is under
stood. is cooperating with a number of
the other ousted Lay Judges in the pres
ent case brought by Judge Kenny.
The case in question was argued before
the Branch Court early in June, Allan
l.. McDermott representing the relator,
Judge Kenny. Senator Foster NJ. voor-
hees and Frank Bergen, of Elizabeth,
represented the defendant. Judge Huds-
peth. and defended the constitutionality
of the act. Senator Voorhees, introduced
the bill in the Legislature.
The Lay Judges. among other things,
contend that they are not lay judges.
They say that the word lay does not
appear either in their commissions nor
in the Constitution. They hold further
that there is no difference between them
and the presiding Judges under the
law and the Constitution.
Since the case was argued the Lay
at the delay IN handing down the sdeci-
sion of the Supreme Court which they
hold was promised ct an early date
They have frequently expressed their IN
tention of carrying the case to the Court
of Errors should the decision be an ad-
verse one This VIII undoubtedly be done
and the case heard at the November term
Judge John Kenny was seen this
morning by News" reporter. He seemed
to take the decision of the Sunrenae Court
as a matter of course. When asked
whether he proposed to appeal from that
decision or not he repled.-
Certainly; that has been our inten-
ton from the very first"