The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-07-21
THE KELSEY FEE SUIT
History Of the Law Under
Which He Claimed a
Right to the Fees.
BIG LEGAL BATTLE AHEAD
The Case Will Probably Be Tried
at the November Term of
the Supreme Court.

Especial to s.The Jersey City News."
TRENTON, July q, S97.-Attorney Gen
eral Grey has not yet filed the papers in
the proposed suit against ex-Secretary Of
State Henry c. Kelsey, for the recovery
of about $40, 900. P~rerogative Court fees,
which it is claimed Mr.. Kelsey illegally
retained for his own use, but 1t is prac-
tically settled hat the case will be tried
at the November term of the Supreme
Court. before the main court and with
out a jury. This much was admitted yes
terday by ex-Judge William NJ. tanning,
one of Mr.. Kelsey's counsel, who said to
q reporter that there was no need Of
trying the case in a Circuit Court before
a jury, as there were no facts in dispute.
The whole matter, he said, hinged or the
construction to be placed on the act of
April Is, 1891, under which Mr.. Kelsey
claimed the legal right to retain the fees.
Judge tanning further said that it was
his understanding that the suit would
be instituted in time to be placed on the
Supreme Court calendar for trial in No
vember. as both sides are anxious for
speedy adjudication of the matter.
The trial will no doubt be a fierce legal
battle. Mr.. Kelsey has already employed
as his counsel ex-Mayor G. D. w. yroom
and ex-Judge William NJ. Lanning and
Judge Robert S. Woodruff. Attorney
General Grey will also probably lave
legal assistance. The law of April Is. 1891,
upon which the whole case depends, is a
short act. Its practical effect outside of
the matter in dispute, was to increase
about twenty per cent. the fees to be
paid by those doing business with the
P~rerogative Courts. The act of 1886 made
the fees the same in the Orphans and the
P~rerogative Courts. Subsequent to this
the Orphans Court fees were increased
about twenty per cent, while the Pre-
rogative Cour fees were left unchanged
until the passage of the 1891 act, when IL
was provided that they should be the
same as the Orphans Court fees. The
Legislature has ten years before, in 1881,
passed a law providing that the Secretary
of State should, in compensation for all
OF his duties, including that of acting as
register of the Prerogative Court, receive
a salary of six thousand dollars a year in
lieu of all fees. The whole question
which will come before the court will be
whether the act of 1891, providing for an
increase in the P~rerogative our fees,
was intended by the Legislature to be al
so an amendment to the act of 1891, by
providing thai those increased fees should
go to the Secretary of State for his own
use as an additional compensation to his
salary of six thousand dollars a year.
In view of this it is interesting to know
just what the act of April is, 1891, pro-
vides. The full ext of the act is as fol-
iows:-"Sec. l. That it shall be the duty
of the Register of the P~rerogative Court
to record all wills, proofs, probate let
tiers testamentary issued thereon and in
ventories hereafter proven, and in cases
now pending in the P~rerogatiye Court or
before the Ordinary, and all accounts of
executors, Administrators, trustees and
letters of administration hereafter issued.
granted or allowed by the Ordinary, and
all orders, DEGREES other papers OF a
to be recorded In the Surrogates' offices
of the respective counties, n for all
odIieiai services roSst as as Regiist ss Of ept fhe Pre- e.
charge and receive the same fees as are
now allowed by law to the Surrogates of
the several counties Of this state for like
Cured in carrying out the provisions of
this act shall be paid by the Register out
of the fees SO collected.
Sec. 2. That this act shall take effect
Immediately, and all acts and parts of
acts inconsistent herewith, be and the
same are hereby repealed"
William H. Corbin, counsel for the Sem
ate Investigating Committee of two years
ago, and the committee itself in its re-
port to the legislature took the position
Secretary of State to collect the increased
fees for the benefit of the State, and At
torneg g. Gee secrat Grey u n san an opinion ,,, s Ms
Kelsey's successor. took the same view.
Mr.. Kelsey claimed at the investigation
that he had been a say by private coun-
In this connection the history of the
passage of the act of 1891 is not without
interest, although It Is not at all likely
lature of that year will be subpoenaed in
order to help the court in reaching a de-
termination as to what was the Legs
s sen on March 1, BY A Assem- nan
Ionn = as Haf Sasem Of Ne biii ia n a5 76eca Tne
Committee BY Speaker Bergen. That
committee on March u, through its chair
reported the bill favorably without
amendment. The other members of the
committee We're John r. Hardin of Essex,
Smith of Morris, and j. Herbert Potts of
Hudson, the latter being a Republican.
The bill came up on third reading on
March II and was passed 50 to @ Among
the 80 were Assemblymen William D.
DAILY and George w. Ketcham, who after
wards became Senators and were men,
bers of the Senate Investigation Com
mittee, which reported adversely to Mr..
Kelsey's construction of the law.
The bill after passing the House was
sent to the Senate the following day and
was referred by President Adrain to the
Senate Judiciary Committee. The printed
minutes of the Senate fail to show that
the bill was reported by the Committee,
but on the following day, which was the
day preceding final adjournment, the bill
was taken up on second reading and un-
der a suspension of the rules was ordered
to a third reading and was placed on final
passage. The vote was IA to 0.