USA > New York > New York City > History of the Court of common pleas of the city and county of New York : with full reports of all important proceedings > Part 13
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15
When the Constitutional Convention of 1894, of which I had the honor to be a member, was convened, the spirit of reform so widely prevalent and which had for its cardinal principle the accomplishment of changes from existing conditions, whether for the better or for the worse, became rife at its sessions, and to such an extent that it was seriously mooted not only to abolish the Superior Court and the Court of Common Pleas, but to terminate the terms of office of their incumbent Judges.
Happily this spirit was of but short duration, and it was generally conceded that the personnel of all the Judges and the high repute of those Courts, justified a consolidation of the Courts without the curtailment of any term of office.
Consolidation was doubtless essential. From various causes differences of procedure prevailed, which might have been removed, but vital differences in jurisdiction and in power, some of which could only have been adjusted by constitutional amendment also prevailed, which subserved no useful purpose, and which tend- ed greatly to vex, annoy and confuse the practi- tioner and the litigant, and so, for these and other
211
reasons, the consolidation was effected, and wisely effected.
It may be doubted whether the limitations placed upon the transferred Judges in the exercise of judicial functions in the newly created Court were wise. Cer- tainly nothing in the individuality of these Judges jus- tified any discrimination, but this is after all only a minor matter, though regrettable, and arose not from a desire to make an invidious distinction among the Courts, but from the necessity of the creation of a larger Appellate tribunal, occasioned by the com- mendable abolition by the convention of the limitation of appeals to the Court of Appeals to judgments of more than five hundred dollars, which will increase the volume of business of the Court of Appeals and to the unwillingness of the convention to afford relief to that Court either by addition to its numbers or by provid- ing for a Second Division of the Court in the event of any exigency. Membership in this Appellate Division, it was not unnaturally provided, should at the outset be confined to existing Judges of the Supreme Court.
You gentlemen who now constitute this Court wher- ever you may be, whatever tribunal you may grace, in whatever circumstances you may find yourselves, rest assured that our appreciation for you will never be less than it always has been; greater it cannot be.
ADDRESS OF SURROGATE JOHN H. V. ARNOLD.
MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN :- I do not rise here for the purpose of supplementing or endeavoring to supplement by any language of my own what has been so well said by the eloquent speakers to whom we have
212
listened, on the lines they have pursued. Every enco- mium which has passed from their lips must meet a ready response in the breast of every citizen of New York. The services of the long line of distinguished jurists who have dignified and graced the bench of the Court of Common Pleas through so many years must be accorded that meed of praise which belongs to ear- nest and painstaking work, conspicuous ability, unim-
peachable integrity, devoted to public service.
I rise
simply for the purpose of recalling on this interesting
occasion, to which it may be appropriate, the associa- tions which have long existed between the Surrogate's Court of the City and County of New York, of which I have the honor to be a representative, and the Court of Common Pleas. And I shall do so very briefly and I
know very imperfectly. We are told by the learned
Chief Justice to whom we have listened with so much pleasure here to-day, that the Mayor's Court of New York, which was in a sense a predecessor of this Court
the probate of Wills and grants of letters of adminis- for a considerable period exercised jurisdiction over
tration, and over the settlement of estates; and many Wills involving titles to valuable real estate in this city and county, were probated in that Court, and were to be found among its records. It was then not at all unnaturally, although perhaps not due at all to that cir- cumstance, that, when provision was made in the statutes of this State for the filling of a vacancy caused
by death of the Surrogate, the duty of filling that vacancy, for the time being, was assigned to and devolved upon the Court of Common Pleas. And it was while serving as temporary Surrogate upon the
213
death of Surrogate West, that the learned Chief Justice of this Court in the matter of the Brick Estate, for the first time set forth clearly and succinctly the history of the Probate Courts of this State, of the powers and jurisdiction which they had exercised, and their sources, subjects which were involved at that time in very much of obscurity, in fact had been substanti- ally pronounced both by bench and bar as untraceable. He pursued his labors on those subjects with assiduity and prodigious industry, reaching in every case plain and incontrovertible conclusions. His work was commended most gracefully by the Court of Appeals, as evincing a patience and accuracy of research which left nothing to be added; and without doubt his work in this respect gave a great impetus to that legislation which subsequently followed and by which was inaugu- rated the comprehensive system of procedure which now governs and directs the Surrogate's Courts of this State, where before all was crudity and imperfection. Provision has also been made in the statutes of this State for the transfer of certain issues of fact arising in the Sur- rogate's Court, for trial by jury in the Court of Common Pleas, also for the exercise by the Court of Common Pleas of the powers and jurisdiction of the Surrogate's Court in cases of absence, sickness, disability and dis- qualification on the part of the Surrogate, and, as occa- sion has arisen, that jurisdiction and power has been so exercised. But there has been a very important class of cases arising out of contests of Wills originating in the Surrogate's Court which under provisions of law have been transferred to this Court for jury trial. The despatch of those cases has involved a great deal of
214
additional labor on the part of the Judges of this Court. That labor has been assumed by them cheerfully, and always performed most satisfactorily and to the great relief of the Surrogate, and those services were ren- dered at times when their own business pressed heavily upon them. The Justices of this Court are entitled to the gratitude of the Surrogates, and I know that in tendering my acknowledgment of the same to them now upon this occasion, I speak not only for my asso- ciates and myself, but for my learned predecessors in the office.
The Judges of this Court will take with them into their new sphere of action, our best wishes, and the trust that they will long continue to serve the public.
ADDRESS OF CHIEF JUSTICE RUFUS B. COWING, OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS.
In order not to be prolix, but brief, and to keep my remarks within your indulgence and patience, I have jotted down a few sentences which I beg respectfully to read to you as remarks coming from the appropriate representative of a Court so recently in the past asso- ciated with this.
The committee appointed by the bar to arrange the programme for this meeting has invited me as the senior Judge of the Court of General Sessions to be present and participate in its proceedings.
The new Constitution of our State has expressly decreed that on and after next Wednesday, the Court of Common Pleas shall cease to exist, and that its juris- diction and Judges shall be transferred to the Supreme Court. We are assembled here to-day to take recog-
215
nition of this fact and to, in some appropriate and formal way, record for all future time our respect and admiration for a Court which has in the past for so many years performed so conspicuous a part in admin- istering justice in the State. We cannot fully appre- ciate the important part which this ancient and honor- able Court has taken in administering the laws of the State without taking into consideration the varied extent of jurisdiction which its Judges have from time to time exercised.
It is not only a Court of very large and extensive original jurisdiction, but it has appellate jurisdiction in all cases on appeal from the City Court and the several District Courts of the city; and its Judges by statute are empowered to perform the duties of the Surrogate and also to preside in and over criminal trials in the Court of General Sessions. In the performance of the very pleasing duty assigned to. me in this after- noon's proceedings I shall confine my remarks to a very brief review of the relation which this Court bears to the Court over which I have the honor to preside.
Over two hundred years ago the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of General Sessions were created, and have formed a part of the judicial system of the State ever since. While both Courts had at one time both civil and criminal jurisdiction, eventually the two Courts were reorganized, with distinct jurisdiction which they have since exercised: the Common Pleas for the trial of civil actions, and the General Sessions for the trial of criminal cases, although both tribunals were composed of the same persons. Up to the time
216
Lauterbach
I.R. Concert.
of the granting of the Dongan Charter in 1686 the Mayor's Court was the principal Court of the Province, and exercised all the jurisdiction afterwards conferred upon this Court, and the General Sessions. In fact, the Mayor's Court not only at that time performed judicial duties but also legislative and executive. Without entering more minutely into the rise and pro- gress of these two ancient and important Courts, let me say a few words in reference to my own.
The Court of General Sessions is in point of fact the highest criminal Court in the county. It disposes of over nine-tenths of the felonies committed and triable in the county, as well as many of the misdemeanors; and its importance in maintaining the peace and good order of society cannot well be overestimated. The Court, while it has not always been presided over by gentlemen learned in the law, has always been held in great respect by the people. For many years the Recorder was the only lawyer who presided over its trials, assisted by the Mayor and Aldermen; and this continued down to 1853 when by express law the Recorder and the City Judge were each empowered to hold the Court without the aid and assistance of either the Mayor or Aldermen. The jurisdiction of the Court is purely criminal and in this respect outranks all others except the Supreme Court, which is of co-ordinate jurisdiction. It has had upon its bench many men of great legal ability and distinction, among whom may be mentioned Recorders Riker, Hoffman and Smythe; and it has through its trials done very much in settling the criminal law and practice not only in this State but in the United States.
217
Without in any way desiring to detract from the great importance to the people of the civil jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, in my judgment not the least, but the most important jurisdiction is that conferred by statute upon the Judges of this Court to preside over criminal trials in the Court of General Sessions. It is a jurisdiction which for many years has rarely been exercised, but nevertheless has at times been exercised with great ability and benefit to the public. It is a matter of congratulation that while the grand old Court of Common Pleas will soon go out of existence its jurisdiction and Judges will be transferred to a higher Court so that the people will still continue to have the benefit and advantage of the large experience and great ability of its Judges. A Court which has filled so large a place in the judicial system of the State for so long a period, which has accom- plished such a vast amount of important judicial work, as is evidenced by its records and reports, which has had upon its bench so many distinguished and illus- trious Judges and jurists, which has done so much to organize and perfect one of the most perfect and com- plete judicial systems of the world, needs no tablet to perpetuate its memory and fame. But so long as the memory of the present generation shall last, and recorded history shall continue to chronicle the rise and progress of our Nation and State, will the memory, fame and distinguished service of the grand old Court be handed down into the future.
I had jotted down some historical matters. But it is not my purpose to allude to them in any way, shape or manner. The learned Chief Justice has given a
218
resume of all that need be said at this time; and I feel that for me to further trespass on your indulgence and patience at this hour would not only be cruel to you, but would be unjust to speakers, several of whom are to follow me. But I want to say to the Judges of the Common Pleas that I know they will carry with them the respect and confidence of all the members of the bar into that higher sphere of action into which they are to go; and while the name of "Common Pleas" will no longer be heard or mentioned except in reports and decisions, I am sure that the Judges themselves. will always be remembered with the highest respect and gratitude for the services which they have per- formed to the people of this city and State.
ADDRESS OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT A. VAN WYCK, OF THE CITY COURT.
We are gathered here to indulge in emotions of a conflicting character.
We recite with a fully justified pride the history of a Court rich in learning, presided over by learned jurists, and pregnant with far-reaching influences in the economy of this great metropolis.
While demonstrating a reason for its perpetual exist- ence, we hear the mandate of our new Constitution proclaiming that the hour is reached when we must bid farewell forever to the Court of Common Pleas, which, however, will live in memory and form one of the brightest pages in the history of American jurispru- dence.
The good-night to the Judges of the Court of Com- mon Pleas is but the good-morning to the Justices of
219
the Supreme Court, and the disappearing of the distin- guished Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, is but his immediate reappearance as Presiding Justice of one of the appellate branches of the Supreme Court.
The sorrows of death and the joys of birth, the sweet and the bitter, are strangely commingled in the thoughts suggested by these ceremonies.
The majesty of the commonwealth has decreed this change, and this is no time to question the wisdom thereof, for there is a sound philosophy in the proverb, " The king is dead, long live the king," which has an application to the situation.
However much we may esteem the dead ruler, or how- ever much we may admire the old methods of the admin- istration of any department of government, we must lend our best efforts to make successful the new ruler and the new method of administration, and it is the bounden duty of every Judge and lawyer to sincerely labor for the success of this new system of a consoli- dated Court for the administration of justice.
We justly boast of the long line of distinguished ju- rists who have adorned the bench of the Court of Com- mon Pleas and we point with pride to the fact that their reported decisions have so frequently been cited by the Courts of the civilized world as binding authority by virtue of the innate strength of their reasoning and sense of justice, as to mark these Judges as richly endowed with both mind and conscience.
They manifested a sympathy and familiarity with human nature and the necessities of life, which always opens wide the broad avenues of knowledge and wis- dom.
220
They seem never to have forgotten that law, in its nature, is the noblest and most beneficial of the sciences, but in its abuse and debasement the most sordid and pernicious.
They were the expounders of the law according to its reason and spirit, seeking to climb up to the van- tage ground of the science, never attaching undue advantage to the mere technicalities, never extending hospitality to experts in the art of perverting and defeating the ends of justice.
To them the law was what it was designed to be, the science of justice, which defines the rights of person and property, interposing its powerful arm between the strong and the weak, and settling rights according to one uniform standard of even-handed justice to all.
They were the proud possessors of the confidence of the lawyers who are always sensitively jealous as to the maintenance of the purity of the judicial ermine.
No Court was ever freer from scandal and suspicion than this one; and it would indeed be less than human if the realization that it is to be no more, did not prompt the heart to sincere expressions of sorrow and regret.
Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, we bid you good-night. Justices of the Supreme Court, we salute you good-morning.
ADDRESS OF JUSTICE JAMES A. O'GORMAN, OF THE ELEVENTH DISTRICT COURT.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BAR :- This ceremony is unique because it is without a paral- lel in the annals of American law. We have been
221
reminded by Mr. Butler of the dissolution of other Courts in the past, and especially of the Court of Chancery, and of the Court of Errors. But I venture to say that never before in any city upon this continent has a meeting of the bar been convened to take note of the passing away of a Court of Justice that could boast of an existence of two centuries and a half. The event is one of great significance, and marks an epoch in the administration of law in this State.
We have gathered here to-day not only to manifest our appreciation of the great ability that has ever dis- tinguished the bench of this Court, but to express our regret that a Court with such an historic past, and with such grand traditions, should be swept away by a radi- cal, and as many believe, an ill-advised change in our organic law.
The Court of Common Pleas of the City and County of New York is perhaps the most ancient American tribunal. It is twice as old as the Nation itself; and, measured by its antiquity, by the high character and professional attainments of its Judges, by its varied and important contributions to the jurisprudence of the State and Nation, by its long life of public usefulness, I think no Court in this State has a higher claim upon the confidence and commendation of the bar, and the citizens generally of this city. A contemplation of the history of this Court as reviewed for us to-day by the venerable Chief Justice, is well calculated to incite in us emotions of great and deep respect, and of admira- tion for this venerable tribunal. Dedicated as a temple of justice at a time when the population of this island numbered but a few hundreds, it has survived the
222
vicissitudes of wars and conquests, and for upwards of two hundred and forty-two years its force and power have been directed to the great end of human society- the administration of justice. We should be proud of
this Court. No stain mars the beauty of its magnifi-
cent career. I know the bar of this city is proud
of it. We are proud of its Judges, past and present. They have been in truth ministers of justice, always animated by a high and an exalted conception of their duties and responsibilities. To-morrow will
witness the dissolution of this Court. But its record will live after it, and I am sure will always be prized by the bar of the city and county of New York as one of its most valuable possessions.
I second the adoption of the resolution.
ADDRESS OF JUSTICE GEORGE F. ROESCH, OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY AND OF THE BAR :- Through the courtesy of the Committee of Arrangements the Justices of the District Courts in our city are enabled to participate in this commemorative gathering.
These Courts will soon be the sole survivors of the ancient judicial system of our municipality. They can trace their lineage as District Courts, Assistant Jus- tice's Courts and Justice's Courts as far back as 1759. True they are Courts of limited and purely statutory jurisdiction, yet they are peculiarly Courts of the poor people. Day after day the petty disputes of civic life seek adjustment in them, and even in these smaller forums questions of surprising magnitude often arise.
223
In the lower portion of our city the commercial strife of our metropolis is heard in them though upon a lesser scale than that which engages the attention of the higher Courts. In the upper portion large property interests are frequently at stake in the sum- mary proceedings which are brought in them. On the great East side a dense cosmopolitan population crowds them with litigation which in frequency and intensity is in inverse proportion to the pecuniary amounts involved. The legal questions arising in these Courts in every portion of our city are fairly representative of the varied interests of the masses of our people. They rival in the importance of the results of their determi- nation in the circles whose activities they affect, the larger judicial problems solved in the Courts of Record.
I listened gratefully to the eloquent language of the leader of the junior bar (Mr. Lauterbach) when he alluded to the importance of these minor tribunals. He did not overestimate the position they occupy and the rank they hold in our judicial life. But these Courts have not alone aided the people in the dispo- sition of a great amount of petty litigation. They have been of service as well to the bar and the bench of our city. It has frequently been remarked that the Courts of Justice's of the Peace in our State have been nurseries of great men of our profession.
It can be asserted with equal confidence that the District Courts of our city have been the theatres of the early struggles and triumphs of men who have become famous at our bar, and who found in them excellent schools of forensic discipline. Nor must we
224
forget that the District Courts have also been the cradles of great Judges who were transplanted from the lesser functions of these Courts to the higher sphere and more weighty concerns of the bench of the Court of Common Pleas. I refer to Hon. Fred. W. Loew and Hon. George C. Barrett, who in early life were occupants of the District Court bench and thus acquired valuable familiarity with the practical affairs of the every-day life of the common people.
It was indeed appropriate to invite these Courts to take part in these exercises. Since 1857 the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas was their appellate tribunal. It may be interesting to call attention on this occasion to the fact that during an interregnum of twenty-four days in the month of April in 1857, the appeals from the Districts Courts were directly to the General Term of the Superior Court of this city. I refer in support of my statement to the note in Day v. Swachhammer (5 Abb. Pr. Rep., 345). Shortly there- after the old system was restored and the General Term of this Court has ever since had jurisdiction of appeals from the District Courts. Statistics will bear out the assertion that surprisingly few appeals are taken in comparison with the volume of business dis- posed of in the lower Courts. Last year about 200 appeals were heard though upward of 50,000 actions and proceedings were tried in the District Courts in that period of time. The most pleasant and cordial relations have subsisted between the Judges of the General Term of this Court and the Justices of the District Courts. We have always looked to you as our mentors and trusted and kindly judicial guides in the
225
labyrinth of precedents and mass of principles in the law.
It is true that we part with you as a General Term. Yet we lose you in name only and we will not be deprived of the benefit of your example and influence. You will continue to blaze out for us among conflicting views those principles of justice which should be applied by us to the concerns of the people of our own Courts. We glory in the fact and congratulate our- selves upon the circumstance that in the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in which the appeals from our Courts will be heard in the future there will be a trio of Judges intimately acquainted with the judicial life of these lesser tribunals and who understand the wants and needs of the people for speedy, cheap and substantial justice in these Courts.
I allude to Justices Daly, McAdam and Bischoff. No doubt they will follow as their polar star the spirit of the decision in Meyers v. Rosenbach (9 Mis. Rep., 89), in which Justice Pryor declares that " It is the distri- bution of substantial justice irrespective of formal rules of procedure that is the function of the District Courts in disposing of the litigation before them. Were they to be fettered by all the technical and recondite rules of practice with which Judges and counselors in Courts of Record are presumed to be conversant, they would surely miscarry in the attain- ment of that cheap and speedy justice which is the end of their institution."
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.