Norwich bulletin., 1909-01-04

New Haven, Jan. S.-The Fox-Lilley
case was dismissed by Judges Robin
son and Bennett Saturday. Demurrer
of counsel for Mr.. Fox was overruled
and the plea Of abatement made by
Mr.. Lilley's counsel was sustained, and
the corrupt practices act declared to
oe unconstitutional.
The clerk of the superior court for
New Haven county was designated as
the court officer to receive all papers
in the case.
Right to Trial by Jury.
The judges held that the right Of
trial by jury under the state cOnsti-
tuition is inviolate; therefore the act
cannot clothe anybody with power to
take away. through a finding, rights
guaranteed by the constitution. The
act the judges say. is commendable
but it gives a petitioner the right to
draft two judges to hear complaint.
There might be ten petitioners. and
this would make twenty judges en-
gagged in hearing complaints, and the
legal business would be at a stand
still.
The unconstitutionality Of the act,
however. is based upon the question
of the right of jury trial.
Fox Not to Appeal.
Mr.. Fox's attorneys at once gave
IDLlit u du dDItdL 10 Allt 81 III tlIlt
court of errors. This appeal is based
upon the statute which provides that
an appeal may be taken from the de-
cisiOn Of a judge. Later it was decided
not to appeal.
The proceedings did not draw nrany
spectators The lawyers were present
ON time as soon as the judges took
their seats. Judge Robinson announc-
ing the finding, handed copies Of the
pfdfnfDn a TaGGJrn
uoWs.
Nr. Fox said he had nothing to say,
as the matter would be passed upon
by his lawyers. Mr.. Jessup said that
the opinion gave the reasons for the
finding and until he had thoroughly
gone through that he did not care to
SAY anything He himself was a
stranger in a strange land, and as
the finding was based upon a cOnsti-
tutional question with which he was
not familiar at this time he could not
say upon what ground the appeal
would be based.
The action would place Mr.. Fox in
the position Of knocking at the door
Of the supreme court for hearing.
LiIIeys Contention.
on Thursday last. after receiving
copy OF the memorandum Of Mr.. Fox $
counsel. Messrs. Burpee and Judson
&lrN ill'A a uiHlDbIdhQulu IN reply.
This was not read today as the pro-
ceedings did not require it. The bur
den Of this was that under the con-
stitutiJn providing for the creation of
courts. a Jurisdiction non judicial can
not bo added to that heretofore exer-
cised by the judicial department Of the
state That this cannot he done by
the legislative will has been decided
by tho supreme court in the Norwalk
street railways appeal. sixty Con-
ncctiCut
The act cannot impose upon the
judges of the superior court the pow
crs sought to be imposed.
llu the NOrwalk street railway de-
CiSiDn the supreme court said: THE
law under consideration, however. goes
too far. 1t involves a recognition by
tho court Of a right to exercise pow
ers plainly beyond the scope Of that
judicial power cOnfded to it by the
constitution and TO exercise these
powers not as incident to some legiti-
mate judicial function. but in the first
instance independent of any purpose
except the mere execution Of the DOW
ers. We cannot recognize such a right !
because the recognition leads inevita-
blv to the obliteration of any line Of
Sc eparation between the judicial and !
other departments Of government |
Mr.. Fox Surprised.
Later when Mr.. Foxs attention was |
called to that point in the finding of /
the judges which stated that there |
might be ten petitioners calling away |
twenty judges and bringing the judi /
cia machinery Of the state to a stand |
still, he expressed surprise at this |
finding Of the judges in view Of the