Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 03.pdf/399

 366

TJie Green Bag.

significant. It provided that no suitor's right of property should be determined by any of these courts, except where there was an actual confession by the parties of the facts, or where there was no appearance, unless a jury should intervene. There was no mention of the number of judges of any of the courts thus established, nor were any particular persons named for chief or associate justices of the " Supream" Court. In 1837 a law was introduced into the Legislature by a far-sighted and acuteminded lawyer which proved to be of in calculable value to the State and to suitors. Before that time, carrying out the provisions of Lord Cornbury's ordinance, circuits of the Supreme Court were held in each county. Trials at bar were rarely had; by statute they could not he held before a full bench unless the amount involved was three thou sand dollars. Issues of fact, therefore, which were begun in the Supreme Court were tried at these circuits; the records from the higher court were sent to the clerk of the county, who acted as clerk of the circuit, over which a justice of the Supreme Court presided. But unless two hundred dollars were recovered by the plaintiff he lost his costs. Causes for any amount of one hun dred dollars and over could be brought in the courts of Common Pleas; and if judg ment were recovered for that amount or more, costs followed the judgments. The jurisdiction of justices of the peace by this time had gradually crept up to one hundred dollars and less; so that suitors for claims less than two hundred and more than one hundred dollars were driven to the courts of Common Pleas. But the judges who gener ally presided in those courts were invariably selected from citizens who were not lawyers, and who were elected by joint meeting or nominated by the Governor. These selec tions were made for political reasons and to reward partisanship. Regard was seldom had to qualifications or fitness for the po sition. The result was that suitors were

obliged to have recourse for their remedies to tribunals where incompetency and igno rance too often were the chief characteristics of the judges, and glaring injustice was top frequently the result. In the first part of this century an unsuc cessful attempt was made to remedy this evil. It was reserved for a member of the Legislature from Essex County successfully to work out this remedy. For several years, and until the system had been fairly tested, it was very unpopular; in fact, the lawyer who introduced the plan into the Legislature failed of a renomination on account of the great unpopularity of the new organization. But time has fully demonstrated the great excellence of the system, and it is now fairly rooted and grounded into the jurisprudence of the State. These Circuit Courts of the county are of original jurisdiction, and suits of. every character, of a common-law nature, can be brought in them; but a recovery of one hundred dollars is necessary to carry costs. The Courts of Common Pleas still exist with the same jurisdiction, but are now almost entirely disused, except for appeals from Jus tice's Courts and the district courts recently established by statute in the large cities. In these appeals the Common Pleas has, in the first instance* exclusive jurisdiction. This ordinance of Lord Cornbury is really the origin of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, as it exists to-day. From his time until now it has remained the same so far as jurisdiction and procedure are con cerned. The number of its judges and of its terms has been increased. It assumed, at first, the common law procedure, some of which has been altered by legislation, more by the action of the court itself. The old common law method of pleading, which at first also obtained in all its absurdity and complexity, has been materially changed, not so much by statute as by the decisions of the court. Fifty years ago great delays were occasioned by a system of fictitious pleadings. Pleaders may still employ the