The sun., 1908-07-09
STAYS ON THE BENCH
CAN SIT IN SPECIAL SESSIONS AND
HELP WITH "TOWN TOPICS" TOO.
Appellate Division Denies the Application
for His Removal, Deciding That
Whether the Business Was Decent or
Indecent He Did Not Garry II On"

for His Removal. Deciding That
Whether the Business Was Decent or
Indecent He Did Not Garry II On"
The Appellate Division Of the Supreme
Court dismissed yesterday, In unanimous
decision. the charges brought against
Justice Joseph M. Deuel. OF the Court Of
Special Sessions. The charges were fled
by Edward NJ. Shepard. James w. Osborne
and william Travers Jerome, who accused
Justice Deuel. Of having violated the law
which forbids Justice Of Special Session
to carry on" any business and directs him
to devote his whole time and capacity $50
far as the public interests demand" to his
judicial duties.
The specific charges against Justice Deuel.
were that he was actively engaged. as q
part owner and officer, in managing the
corporations that published Toson Topics.
the Smart Set and @Fads and Fancies,"
and In editing the publications themselves.
1t was also charged that it was part Of the
business OF these corporations to extort
money from persons occupying prominent
social position. by threats to print scandal
ous or defaniatory matter about them;
that salacious and sourrilous matter fire.
auently was printed in Toan Topics. and
that Justice Deuel.. as an officer Of the pub
fishing corporation. and it's libel editor,
must have known, and did know. the oharac-
ter OF the publication with which he was
associated. Such conduct on the part OF a
Justice, the complainants charged, was
sufficient ground for his removal.
Justice Ingraham. in long opinion.
expresses the views Of the Appellate Di-
vision on the subject Of what constitutes
carrying on" q business. He concludes
triss J,;stt.os Deuel. did not actively carry
on d business and that. therefore. he did
not violate the law.
The charges against Deuel. were pre-
ferred after the criminal libel proceedings
between Col. W. d. Mann, editor Of Town
Tonics. and Norman Hpapgood, editor Of
Golfers Weekly. Justice deuel. was q
examination admitted that he had inspired
and written letters to prominent men urg-
ing them to subscribe to AFads and Fanoies."
This was q luxurious publication in which
for q consideration. subscriber could
dent OF the To,on Topics Publishing Com
pany and as sort of "libel editor
Justice Ingraham says that the charges
turn on the meaning to be given TO the
eXpI038lOn OdTEy Ou u DubhCoS. IAC
holds that to bring a. Justice within the
statutory prohibition there must be 'such
q relation to the business as imposes upon
the person charged an obligation or re-
sponsibility for It's management, the as-
sumption OF it's control or an obligation to
perform duties In relation to its
A position as executor or trustee OF ar,
estate would not ccme within the pro-
bibition, nor would the position OF director
or officer Of corporation. 30 long az 1t
nj e.. nottxy
and @ control CON Of the corporation Il would
be violation for Justice TO be an active
partner In q business, even though he
could truthf,illy say that he did not devote
to It any OF the time the public interests
required for his judicial duties. Also 1t
would be- q violation to be the active officer
or manager Of q corporation, or to accept
any employment that involved the active
control or management OF business or
corporation.
proof that Deue occupied such post az
imposed upon him any active duties In
relation to the Town Topics Publishing
Company or its business. He had no specific
duties, took no active part in It's manage
Ssr OF or s
for the conduct Of the business and did not
an fact,' says Justice Ingreham, sths
evidence is ell the other way. Certainly
meas than the respondent DeueD did, or
was under obligation to do, the business
would not have been carried on at all, and
the conclusion have arrived at is that
the charge OF violation Of section 14i8 Of
the Charter 10 not sustained"
As 70 tho charges involving the character
OF Totcn Topica a. @ publication, Justice
InarahAm says that these charges are
merely part Of tho main charge and II is un-
necessary for the court TO examine into the
decency or responsibility Of the publoa-
ton, since there is no proof that Deuel. was
responsible for the publication or its con-