The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1906-06-29

proved, was for want of jurisdiction in
the Circuit Court although the statute
expressly authorized such an appeal.
The statute was held to be an infringe
ment upon the exclusive power of the
Supreme Court to review such proceed
ing by its pregotative writ.
''In Green vs. Heritage, 30 Vr. 567,
it was held by the Court of Errors that
the Legislature could not confer upon the
Circuit Court power to review the judg
ment of District Courts in matters of law
which might be reviewed by the Supreme
Court on certiorari It was held that it
did not matter that he proceedings for
the review We're styled AN appeal. 1t as
true, that in the opinion, the fact was
mentioned that a writ Of error might, at
the option of litigant, be aiken directly
from the Circuit Court to the Court of
Appeals, and thus review by the Su-
preme court could be eyaded.
In this respect, that case differs from
this case. for in this case the certiorari
would go to the justice of the supreme
court to review his rehearing or a mum.
cipal act But the line of reasoning in
the Heritage case is that the right of the
supreme court to review attaches to The
original proceedings whenever they are
Instituted, SO that whenever there is an
attempt to divert the appellate power
ever such proceedings in another tri-
bunal, whether then existing or then
created, t is an Infringement upon the
prerogativt power of the supreme court
"The doctrine thus enunciated is illus
trated and supported by those cases in
which the Legislature has conferred upon
tribunals other than the supreme court,
a power which has a semblance of being
appellant, but which have been held for
the purpose of supporting the legislation
to be an original, and not an appellate
power.
I'm Somerset VS.. Hunterda1, % Vr
SO, statute authorizing a justice of the
supreme court to decide concerning the
location, expense or reparation of bridge
between adjoining counties where the
boards of chosen freeholders of the re-
spective counties could not agree, was
held to be valid. In this case there was
no appellant function conferred upon the
justice. He was to decide in the first in
stance respecting a matter inter parts.
''In Conger vs. Convery, % Viz, AT,
while it was again asserted that the SUI
preme court could not be required to
share with another tribunal any of its
prerogatiye powers, nevertheless an act
providing that the circuit court should
have jurisdiction to hear and determine
controversies between the contestant and
incumbent was vindicated because the
function of the circuit court was re-
garded not as appellate but simply as
part of the election apparatus provided
to ascertain the number and character
of the votes cast.
'The same doctrine is recognized by
the court of errors in O'Brien VS.. Ben
ny. % yr., 1s9.
$50 in East Orange vs.. Hussey, Al
vr. PA, a statute providing that the cir
cult court could appoint commissioners
to assess benefits received from drains
and sewers, to consider the reports of
the commissioners and to revise and
confirm the reports with or without al
terations, which report, when confirmed
should be penary of said assessment,
was held good The statute was sup
ported upon the ground that it must be
regarded as requiring the circuit court to
take part in perfeeting the municipal
proceedings.
.These cases, it is perceived, sustain
the constitutionality of the act confer
ring power upon the circuit court en-
tirely upon the ground that the power
thus conferred is not appellate Nor is
the apparanet conflict between this doe
trine and the familiar instances of ap-
peals from justice courts to courts of
common pleas and then review of the
judgment of the lower court by GER
tiorari TO either the supreme court or
circuit court, more than apparent.
"This feature of our Jurisprudence is
exceptional and arises from the fact that
the courts Of common pleas were. recog-
nized by our present constitution. and at
the time Of the adoption Of that instru-
ment, they were inyssed with power to
hear appeals FROM cours Of trial for
small cases; and rom the further fact