Слике страница

the unbroken testimony of judges and lawyers and associations of the bar who appeared before us has been that it has worked more evil than good, and that it had only led the court to be astute to discover some technicality upon which they could reverse a judgment where in their opinion on examining the evidence it was apparent there was really no evidence to support the judgment, and we conclude it was better to relieve the court of the necessity of resorting to such technicalities, and that that provision should be stricken out of the article. With that exception, we have limited the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to the consideration of the following cases:

First, When the judgment is of death.

Second, From a judgment or order entered upon a decision of the Appellate Division which finally determined an action or a special proceeding directly involving the construction of the Constitution of the State or of the United States, or where one or more of the justices who heard the case dissents from the decision of the court, or where the judgment of the trial court is reversed or modified:

Third, From an order granting a new trial where the appellant stipulates that upon affirmance judgment absolute shall be rendered against him. Those are the only cases in which we recommend there shall be an appeal from the Court of Appeals as of right. But, we provide that the Court of Appeals itself may allow an appeal in any other case where a question of law is involved which, in its opinion, ought to be reviewed by it, and we vest that power in the Court of Appeals alone; not in the chief judge of the court, or in any judge of the court, but in the court itself, and we do not vest it in the Appellate Division. Why? Why? Because it is intended that the power shall only be exercised where an unusual case clearly presents a question which the Court of Appeals thinks should be reviewed. The Appellate Division which has decided the case is not called upon to yield to the feeling that it ought not to deny a review of its own decision. Very many, or most judges, I think, hesitate to deny the right to appeal from their own decision, but the question should be presented to the Court of Appeals, if there is any question of law which could be made readily apparent, and that court can determine on a very brief inspection of the record whether or not there is a question which it should review. That is the practice which obtains in the Supreme Court of the United States, which is exercised every motion day, and applications for writs of certiorari are made there and briefs and petitions are filed, and I am told by the judges of the court that they go through these petitions very quickly and they can decide with a very brief inspection whether

there is a question that really requires consideration and they regard it as a very little burden upon them. Although at first, if this system is adopted, the court will find it perhaps a little burdensome, it will soon develop a system under which they can pick out cases where appeals should be allowed without any great amount of difficulty.

Now, there are two other questions of sufficient importance to be touched upon in this connection, and which should be mentioned, both local.

In the city of New York there are five counties. In each of those counties there is a county court clothed with civil in four of those counties there are county courts clothed with civil and criminal jurisdiction. In Brooklyn there are four county judges, and in the Bronx, Queens and Richmond there is one county judge each.

In Brooklyn the county court practically tries no civil cases, although they have a large docket of civil cases, and a very large arrearage of civil cases. In the county of New York there is one court of general criminal jurisdiction analogous to the county court, to wit, the court of general sessions of the peace, having jurisdiction throughout the county of New York. There is also a city court of the city of New York which is a civil court intermediate the municipal court, which is the court of jurisdiction limited to five hundred dollars, until a recent act sought to increase it to a thousand dollars, and between that court and the Supreme Court there is a city court in the city of New York with jurisdiction limited to two thousand dollars.

Nothing could be more unscientific that in the same city that there should be in the same city six or seven different tribunals exercising this melange of criminal and civil jurisdiction. The judges of the court of general sessions have had their terms of office gradually increased to fourteen years, and their salaries gradually boosted up to the level of the Supreme Court salaries, seventeen thousand five hundred dollars a year; and they have plenary criminal jurisdiction, subject, of course, to that great reservoir of jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of the State. There are now seven judges in that court, and it was urged by some that that court should be absorbed into the Supreme Court, and that a separate division, a criminal division of the Supreme Court, should be established. It seemed to your Committee much more scientific and much more in conformity with the modern organization of courts, an organization which would enable the State to secure the utinost service from the judges of these various tribunals, to merge, as we recommended shall be done, all the criminal courts in the counties of the city of New York into one tribunal, and we recommend that from and after the first day of

January, 1917, following the precedent established by the Convention of 1894, when it merged the superior court of the city of New York, and the court of common pleas of the county of New York into the Supreme Court, enabling a year to elapse for the Legislature to make necessary enactments for the proper arrangements to be made incident to such a change, we have recommended that from and after the first day of January, 1917, the jurisdiction of the court of general sessions of the county of New York be extended over the entire city of New York and that the county judges in the other counties become judges of the court of general sessions, and that the jurisdiction, the criminal jurisdiction of all of those courts be devolved upon the court of general sessions of the city of New York. So that from and after that day, there will be one court of general criminal jurisdiction in the city of New York, with judges chosen in the respective counties, holding terms in the different counties, under the jurisdiction of one presiding judge, to be chosen by the judges of the court; so organized that the entire force of the judges can be employed wherever they are needed in discharging the criminal business of the city of New York, which now vests in courts of that magnitude. In the same way we provide that from and after the same day the jurisdiction of the city court of the city of New York be extended throughout the city and in addition to the jurisdiction which it at present possesses there shall be devolved upon it the civil jurisdiction now vested in the county courts of the respective counties; and we make provision for choosing a sufficient number of judges to supply the need of civil judges of that court for the conduct of the civil business in those counties where the county judge will have become a judge of the court of general sessions. In that way the entire civil and criminal business of the city of New York will be, other than that of the inferior courts, will be vested in these two courts, and the jurisdiction shall extend throughout the city. The same has already been done by the Legislature with respect to the courts of lowest jurisdiction, that is, the municipal court, and with respect to the courts of lowest criminal jurisdiction, namely, the court of special sessions and the magistrates' courts: and we follow with respect to these courts what the Legislature has already done with respect to the courts of next lowest jurisdiction. So that it is not an experiment and it is only following in the line of progress that which has already been adopted successfully with respect to the courts of somewhat lower jurisdiction, and it is following the best examples of the most successful courts, including that court which is so constantly held up as a model by all the students of the organization of courts, the municipal court of the city of Chicago.

I hope that there may be evolved out of the judges of those tribunals some judge with the genius for judicial organization and conduct of judicial business which the chief judge of that Chicago court has. Your committee had the pleasure of hearing him one afternoon tell us at first hand about the organization and conduct of that court, and I think if we had had any doubts before of the advantages obtainable by an organization of this kind they were removed by the story of what that court has done and what could be done under the right sort of man as executive judge of a court of that kind. Of course, judges of that kind, like poets, are born and not made; and it may be that the city courts of New York will not evolve one; but, after all, if we furnish the proper machinery for the proper administration of justice, this Convention will have contributed all that within us lies, and we may say, as Nelson did when his fleet bore down on the French fleet at Trafalgar and he closed his telescope, " I have done all I can for England." In connection with the same thought, the adaptation of courts to meet modern views of the administration of justice, we have provided that the Legislature may create children's courts either by conferring jurisdiction upon existing tribunals or establishing other tribunals which may exercise jurisdiction over the delinquent children, not as criminal courts, but in accordance with modern humane ideas of caring for the children of the State as the wards of the State and not as criminals, and for the purpose of enabling them to carry out the work which is being done in other jurisdictions we provide that the Legislature shall have free power to devolve the necessary jurisdiction upon the children's courts and upon the courts of domestic relations. Finally we come to deal in connection with the administration of justice with one of the most troublesome ones, namely, the question of exemption from liability to jury duty. The exemptions from liability to jury duty. have grown to such an extent that we have a large volume of tes timony from the trial judges of this State that the due administration of our system of trial by jury is very seriously affected by the number of exemptions from liability to jury duty which relieves those members of the community who would be best fitted for the discharge of the important duty of jurors, and we have addressed ourselves to a consideration of what should be done to meet that evil. There we ran up against intrenched special privilege. Unfortunately it has become a well-rooted idea on the part of a number of our people that service of one kind or another should be rewarded by exemptions from the same requirements which are imposed upon those who enter the civil service of the State, or be relieved from liability to jury duty, as though jury duty has become a burden to be avoided rather than the privilege

of free men. There is no more clamorous or well-organized body of men in support of these exemptions than the volunteer firemen's associations of the State, and I suppose every member within hearing of my voice has received at least one bushel-basketful of letters from the volunteer firemen's associations of the State protesting the removal of the exemption from liability to jury duty they at present enjoy. The members of the National Guard, not those in active service, but those who have been honorably discharged, claim the same exemption, and there are others. We finally solved to our satisfaction at least whether to the satisfaction of the Convention or not remains to be seen this problem, by recommending that, except in the case of physicians and surgeons in active practice, exemptions should be limited to persons employed in public service and that no others should be exempt unless and except the judges empowered to frame the practice rules of the State, the civil practice rules, should so prescribe.

In other words, we have felt that the judges of the courts who were brought in daily contact with this problem should determine what class of persons should be relieved of jury duty, rather than that it should be left to the Legislature. Finally we have a provision relating to the Torrens Act which I will not stop to discuss now, and there are a number of minor details that will be presented as the various sections are read. I have tried to briefly sketch over the general items that we have. As a net result, so far as the judicial establishment is concerned, we recommend only the following increase in the number of judges: In the First District, two shall be elected so as to supply the number which we certainly shall need with the added designations to the Appellate Division. We provide for four city court judges in connection with this expansive scheme to be chosen a year from next fall, two in Kings county, one in Bronx county and one in Queens county. We provide for one for the county of Richmond in the measure as reported, and I think it will have to be modified in connection with some suggestions that have come. We have provided for the election of one surrogate there in lieu of the county judges, who will become a member of the general sessions court, but I think we will suggest a modification in that section. Finally we provide that the Legislature shall be authorized to add one general session judge for Bronx county and one city court judge for Kings county. These are the only increases in the judicial establishment that we recommend, except increases which will result in the Supreme Court by transforming the three Supreme Court judges now sitting by designation in the Court of Appeals into permanent Court of Appeals judges and their places in the Supreme Court will have to be filled. With this number of judges, this small increase in

« ПретходнаНастави »