Evening journal., 1901-03-27
Cochran Accepts Judgment
Of Court as Final
OPINION A VOLUMINOUS ONE
1t Deals With Every Phase Of Case
in Clear and Comprehensive
Manner

mnullUl
Associate Judge Boyce, in Superior
Court this morning announced the opin-
ion Of the court in the quo warranto pro-
ceedings brought against Philip q.
Churchman, to establish his right to the
jpdgeship Of the Municipal Court Of VIII
nlington. 1t sustains Mr. Churchman'S S
appointment to the office, holding that
confirmation of the appointment by the
4 Senate was necessary. Edwin X. Coch-
q ram who instituted the suit. accepted the
y opinion of the court as final Judgment
n upon the case. He was represented by
8 Robert G. Harman and J. Harvey White
8 man. H. IL. Ward and Walter II
q Hayes represented Judge Churchman.
81 Following is the opinion of the court in
81 full:
Judge Boyce: The information and
# plea filed which appear in the state
Hment Of the case disclose fully the con-
VI tenticns between the parties to this
i proceeding, and it is unnecessary to
# set them forth in this opinion. Issue
~ las been framed upon a demurrer to
he plea, and the main question pre-
iented for our condite consideration
# md determination is the principal
# .verment contained in the demurrer in
81 words following: THAT the consent of
majority of all the members elected
0 the Senate ci the State Of Delaware
o the said appointment of the said
III edwin r. Cochran, Jr., Esq, to be the
n ty judge Of the Municipal Court for
he city of Wilmington is not required
v law"
We may be permitted TO say that we
ave given the question presented
aim and deliberate consideration and
have reached. what seems to us, the
nly just and impartial conclusion
arranted under the provisions Of the
# onstitutiOn and statute applicable to
le case. In noticing certain cases pre-
nted in the argument, we may say
at the issue before us is not one in
)lving the constitutionality Of the act
tablishing the said Municipal Court
was the main question before the
urt in the case of Gray vs.. State, =,
ar. 76; nor is it simply whether the
dge of said Municipal Court is strict
a corporate and not a civil officer
thin the meaning OF the COnstitu
Pm, such as was raised in the case of
e State VS.. the Wilmington City
uncil, lHar. 294; nor is it whether
E incumbent of the office of the said
lnicipal Court is, while holding said
ice, disqualified from holding a GER
n other office under the United
ltes or in this State by reason of the
)vision in the State Constitution de-
ng any person the privilege of hold
more than one of certain desIg-
y ed Offices such as was the main
3stion before the court in the case
Commonwealth VS.. Dallas 3 Yates
offering in its nature and character
m any of the cases above cited, the
stion here is whether the appoint
bit Of the plaintiff to be judge Of the
I Municipal Court made by the then
ernor required the consent of the
iority of all the members elected to
Senate before the end of the ses-
thereof next succeeding his APP
ltments under any provision con
ed in the Constitution of 1897,
sidered in connection with the
ute establishing said Municipal
IT, None Of these cases is particu-
helpful in determining this ques-
because neither of them presents
deals with the precise question
ed by the pleadings in this case.
investigation is almost, if not al
ther. confined to the Constitution
f. considered in connection with
act establishing the said Municipal
IT, and the relation each bears to
question IN hand.
may be said that whatever may
been the character. Jurisdiction
No ,f 4
city of Wilmington or of the CITY
at any time, prior to the 1st OF
1888, when, under the act of
raj Assembly, passed at Dover.
of the same year, the present
icipal Court, they are not neces-
to be considered in disposing of
case. The fact is that by the said
he said Municipal Court was es-
shed with a distinct character of
wn. possessing the powers and
diction conferred upon it by the
and whatever powers and duties |
er City Courts established for the |
.ration Of the city of Wilmington. |
ssed and exercised. we must look !,
said act of 1883, and any amend |
thereto. fer the grant of power I
jurisdiction which was conferred I
&as.z and now exercised by the present |
w %S eipal Court. And we need not /
hould not look further than here !
for whether the corporation of
ity Of Wilmington once enjoyed |
Exercised the franchises of hold |
court. or whether that franchise I
subsequently, enlarged in nowise !
pr assist us in reaching a proper !
@ lsion in this case. For it is well |