The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-05-02
Common Pleas and Appellate Di.
visions Are Not Contrary to the
Fundamental Law of the State. /,
Important Decision Rendered.

upon assumptions and not upon any ex
press provisions OF the constitution. The
defendants counsel is held To point out
no provision OF the constitution that Is
violated where n majority OF the court
does not sit on case. IL Is shown that
two judges for a long time constituted
"A quorum, when there were four supreme
judges and that the same number con-
stitnted quorum when the court was
made up Of six judges. AS far back as
1852 one judge was made a quorum for
certain purposes. including criminal pro-
ceedings, save cases in which the penalty
was Imprisonment for life.
A good deal of attention was given by
defendants counsel in his brief 10 the
claim that the division OF the court made
by the legislature really deprived judges
of their office by making some of them
members of really an inferior court.
The chief justice shows that this IDEA
OF assigning Judges is no nsw thing and
that the assignment OF a judge 10 the
common pleas division has been contln-
uous from the adoption of the constitution
the one so engaged was excluded ipso
facto from the supreme court for he could
not sit in two places. The impracticability
OF giving every suitor a full court Is
pointed out. and practice is held to show
clearly the necessity of giving a minority
OF the court full jurisdiction. That the
supreme court OF the realm OF England.
the house of lords was but small mi
nority to sit in deciding appeals, is cited
in support of the decision.
NOT TWO SUPREME COURTS.
As TO the claim that the existing ar
rangement makes two or more supreme
courts. the chief justice says: This is no
more so than IL has been continuously
since the organization OF this court, when
under Chief Justices Greene. staples,
Ames. Bradley. Brayton and Durfee sep
arate branches OF the court have been
held at the same time.
THE fact is that the judiciary act in
troduced no new feature into our judicial
system Ii simply changed the name of
the court. Before Il. the judges held
both the supreme court and court OF COM
mon pleas. The time had arrived when
the supreme court could no longer trans
act its original and appellate business.
Some change was required.
The argument that the supreme court
is not divisible would make II necessary,
says the chief justice, IL contention was
logically carried out, for the full court 10
sit in jury trials. II is stated that the
defendant does not go TO that extent and
the chief justice says the defendant con-
purpose OF his verdict. but indivisible for
reviewing IL and the court fnds no war
rant for sucth distinction In, the con-
sttutlon.
The summing up is as follows: "Our
conclusion is that jurisdiction In all APP
court as one body: that the court does
not necessarily sit as whole on all
cases, but it's jurisdiction may be sep
arated into parts; that such parts may he
entrusted TO less than the whole. or a
ma iorty OF the body. that the dlstribu-
the legislature by the constitution, and,
consequently. that the act giving the
court jurisdiction in divisions is not un-
constitutional"