The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1909-09-01

scheme The present court Of errors
and appeals now consists Of the chan
cellor, all the justices Of the supreme
court and six additional judges, known
as lay judges. Until recently these
six judges were in fact laymen un-
| yersed in the law. Now some of them
are laymen and some OF them lawyers
who are or may be in active practice.
The system is Objectionable because
it gives an equal vote to those who
know the law and those who do not
1t is an anomaly that case In our
highest court, where the judges are
divided In opinion, may be decided by
the votes Of those who have never
studied the law and who do not pro-
TESS to know what the law is. 1t may
be doubted whether In this age the
highest court Of any state here or In
Europe has In this regard such con-
stitution. Moreover, court OF six
teen is too numerous The supreme
court OF the United States contains
only nine Judges, that Of the populous
state of New York only seven. The
uISUtSL you'll VI Tic OthCi ototNo W.
tains, as rule, from three to five But
the chief objection to the court as at
present constituted is that it cannot
give proper consideration to the cases
| that come before it, The lay judges
are neither expected nor paid to give
! their whole time to its work. The
| chancellor has his own work to do in
| the court Of chancery, and the Justices
Of the supreme court, although they
have given up sitting at the circuits,
still have great deal or business to
| dispose of In the supreme court, where
they sit together. or, ms 1t is termed.
| in banc. Not only is the court many
months In arrears, but it Is physical
impossibiIIty for its members to give
TO important appeals that thorough ex-
animation which they ought to receive.
A Rsnedi Measure.
The proposed amendment remedies
other defects In our present system.
Courts of law and equity are constltu-
tionally distinct Neither can, even by
act of legislature. constitutiOnally ex-
ercIse the powers and functions OF the
other. The consequence Is that II a
sutton brings his ease In the wrong
court he may after long ana ex'
pensiye litigation, be dismissed from
that court only to begin again In an
other. The present amendment cures
this defect Then. again, as conse'
quence of this complete separation OF
law and equity, man may be 0biigeu
to carry on two suits In two separate
courts at the same time In order to get
all the relief that he requires. The
amendment cures this too. The whole
controversy, once assigned to the ap-
proprlate division or judge. Is decided
In all its phases by that division or
judge.
Furthermore, under the new system
there will be but IL single appeal.
wealthy litigant will no longer be able
to exhaust the resources of his adver-
sary by taking first an appeal to the
supreme or prerogative court and then
to the court Of errors. His case will
be quickly decided, after a single ap.
peal, by n court that every one recog-
nizes ms competent finally to pass upon
| 1t.
Trial by Jury intact.
| Much criticism is often and with JUS
tice directed against the abuse of de-
| Gliding a case on mere technicalities.
Against this the amendment is care
full to provide. 1t is equally careful to
| provide that the right of trial by jury
shall remain intact. 1t is expressly
declared that In passing upon appeals
the right of trial by jury shall be
saved.
The scheme has the additional rec
ommendation that 1t Is, by reason of
its greater simplicity, less expensive
In operation.
From this short review 1t is apparent
that the proposed law Is characterized
by simplicity, economy and efficiency.
If thoroughly understood, as Governor
Fort has well said, there would not be
a voter in the state who would wish
| to vote against It,
FREDERIC w. STEVENS