Year: 1874

There was an interesting argument yesterday
before Judge Davis in Supreme Court Chambers
ON application ior writ OF prohibition against
the Marine Court The application grows out OF .
suit begun in the Superior Court, In which Lewis
Alexander seeks to recover from Jacob Bennett
some 32,7c0, alleged balance due Tor money de-
posted in his hands Judge Freedman, holding
Special Term OF the Superior Court, transferred
rhe cause to the Marine Court This was opposed
by Mr.. Agernon S. Sullivan. the delendant's
counsel and the question was argued be-
lore the Superior Court General Term, the
point raised being the eonsttutionality OF the act
under which the transfer was ordered. Mr..
Matthew p Breen, the piaintlf's counsel contested
the constitutional objection. Meantime the case
was moved to the short cause calendar OF the
Marine Court, when Mr.. Sullivan applied for q
writ Of prohibition interdlctng the Harine Court
from trying the case. In his argument yesterday
ne claimed that the act under which tue transfer
was ordered is unconstitutional, and therefore
void; that the trial OF tine cause In the Marine
Court would cut him from appeal, and that this
act abridges the jurisdiction OF the Superior
Court and interferes with the rights or suffers.
IT was further urged that the act IS unconstitu-
tlonal because it is IN vocation OF section 6 arti
Gle 3, OF the state constitution, which pTescrlDes
that no private or local Dill which may he passed
by the Legislature shah embrace more than one
subject, and that shall be expressed In the tite.n
tame by Mr. Breen counsel for plaintin, that the
act was not unconstitutional; tina, II dia not take
away from party TO a eut which should be re.





right or remedy; that the act simply affected
che matter OF practice and proceedings
IN the courts SO tar as TO provide speedy trial
by removal OF causes IRON the Superior Courts OF
record In the City OF New York to the Marine
Court tnat this was hardship nor depriva-
ton STAGE the Marine Court, havIng all the appll-
aDces to try causes and render judgments the
same other courts OF record, must be presumed
to be capa0le oil as lully administering justice as
they are. In answer to the other objection that
the act was local one ana embraced more than
one subject he cited the recent decision OF the
Court OF Appeals Ia the case oi police justices OF
relation to tie Marine Court embraced but one
subject, and that was properly expressed IN the
title. IL further main tained that this writ
was an unusual remedy, and one which the Court
seldom and only In the N pst urgent necessity ever
granted, and only when there was no other COM
plete and adequate remedy.


Judge Davis minated that upon this appica-
ton he would only CONSIDER wnetner it was a
proper remedy, and then whether the circum-
stances required the Issue OF the writ, which IN
cluded the decision Of the question OF the consti-
tutonality OF the act.


Counsel replied tnat II this Court, upon this mo-
ton. undertook to decide whether the act Is con-
stitutional, then II must consider the pos
sipihty OF the superior Court General
Term, deciding the appeal from Judge Freed
mans order OF removal in conflict with the
decision OF this Court In other words, should
this Court issue the writ and the superior Court,
General Term, afllrm the order of removal, and
declare the act CONSTITUTIONAL the plalntif1 would
be denied his substantial right TO the premises.
and then prohibited from trying his cause.


At the conclusion OF the argument Judge
Davis took the papers and reserved his decision.