Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

His first It was an

guard over the true interests of his party. He disdained the petty devices and mean tricks of many politicians who seek to advance themselves at the expense of decency and self respect. In this way he com. manded the respect of all, both friend and foe. In 1880, he was appointed Associate Justice, was twice renominated and was serving his third term when he was appointed in February, 1897, Chief Justice of New Jersey to succeed Hon. Mercer Beasley, deceased. He took his seat on the bench at the March term, 1880, of the Court of Errors and at the June term of the same year of the Supreme Court. opinion was read in the Supreme Court in the June term. important case arising upon an application for a mandamus. Some very troublesome constitutional questions were presented in the cause arising from some peculiar provisions of the Constitution of 1844. The young judge grappled bravely with all the difficulties in the case and mastered them with great ability. There seemed to be very few decisions by which the court could be aided. Judge Magie referred to one case only, in New Jersey, upon one of the main points raised and to one other case, for some collateral principle. His opinion in this case is a very able one. His arguments were powerful and convincing. He read several other opinions at the same term. Since that time he has been one of the most industrious of the judges and has done his full share of the work of both courts.

His circuit is composed of Morris, Sussex and Somerset. It is not a very large nor important one, but involves much labor. Judge Magie is an excellent trial judge. His large practice while at the bar, a considerable of it being the trying of causes before juries, enables him to understand and appreciate the exact worth of human testimony, to apply the principles of law to the evidence and to lead the minds of the jury in the right direction. He has great force of character, is prompt and decided, dignified and graceful in appearance; he has the force of his own convictions and is independent in thought. does not hesitate if he differs with his brethren of the court, to avow his differences calmly and strongly.

He is a man of ample proportions as well of body as of mind, being full six feet in height and of admirable presence. His mental make-up is characterized by coolness and a dispassionate mode of thought; he reasons well and logically, has a firm grasp of all subjects which come within the range of his mental vision and easily conquers any difficulty which may be found in a case demanding his attention. He is of a firm

and decided character, free from all affectation, genial and easy of access, of a high-toned morality, and acts independently, without regard to mere public clamor or shaping his course by questions of expediency, but according to the strictest principles of right.

There is one gentleman who, as he enters the Court of Errors and takes his seat as a judge, must occasionally have a quiet laugh all to himself. He once, in a most summary way, overruled a decision of that court, without hearing counsel, or even permitting the court to say a word in its own behalf. That tribunal had rendered a decision which caused some comment among members of the bar in New Jersey and elsewhere. A leading law periodical desired an article on the subject, and an audacious law student undertook to demolish the court by writing his opinion on the case. The journal published the communication and sent it out to its subscribers with the indorsement of it which the publication gave. The court, however, did not annul its decree; but this was not because there was no vigor nor sound reasoning in the criticism. It is to be hoped that if the same question should come up before the court while that student has a voice in its deliberations, he will use his utmost endeavors to secure a ruling in consonance with his views thus expressed.

Charles Grant Garrison is the youngest Justice on the bench. He was born at Swedesboro', August 3, 1849. His father was the Rev. J. F. Garrison, D. D., a distinguished clergyman of the Episcopal Church and a Professor in the University of Pennsylvania. Young Garrison was prepared for college in schools of the Episcopal church and was graduated as a physician from the University of Pennsylvania, in 1872. He opened an office in his native town and continued practice until 1876. Preferring the profession of the law, he abandoned a physician's life and entered the office of Samuel H. Grey, an eminent lawyer in Camden, where he remained until admitted as an attorney in 1878. In 1881, he promptly applied for and received his license as counsellor. He has not been an aspirant for political office, but has been advanced to ecclesiastical and military honors. In 1882, he was made Chancellor of the Diocese of New Jersey, an office of the highest importance in that Church, equivalent to that of Attorney General, in the State. In 1884, he was made Judge-Advocate General of New Jersey.

Mr. Garrison brought to the practice of the law a well-matured mind, great aptitude to analyze principles, powers of discrimination and the

ability to scrutinize testimony, adapt it to the case in hand and learn from it what was the real point involved. His practice grew rapidly and he became so conspicuous a practitioner that, at the death of Joel Parker, he was nominated an Associate Justice to fill the vacancy. He took his seat at the February term, 1888, and was renominated for a second term in 1895, but seems to have taken no active part in the rendering of opinions until the June term of 1888. He read several decisions at that term, some, in quite important causes, and from that time has had his full share of the labors of the courts to which he is attached. His circuit is a large and important one, involving a laborious life for a judge who, like Justice Garrison, is conscientious in the discharge of his duty. It is composed of the three counties of Burlington, Camden and Gloucester.

Judge Garrison is an excellent trial judge and presides at the several circuits with great ability and to the acceptability of the bar and of suitors. He has had in his short term of office some important murder cases, one of which was most mysterious and the murderer has never been discovered. Whenever these cases have come to trial full opportunity has been given of testing the judge's powers to grapple with some of the most intricate questions of criminal law and he has shown himself fully able to meet any exigency which might arise.

Judge Garrison is an independent thinker and does not fail, whenever his mind reaches a conclusion in opposition to the rest of the court, to express his opinion freely. He has stood alone in his views more than once and has strongly and vigorously put himself upon the record. The cases of Collins vs. Voorhees and of Bannister vs. Jackson, decided in the Court of Errors, in 1890, afford specimens of his mode of reasoning. The Voorhees case involved a question of legiti macy of children born from a marriage contracted during the lifetime of a former wife, divorced by a fraudulent proceeding; that of Bannister raised the question of testamentary capacity. Some very good lawyers are inclined to agree with the Judge's views in each case. Judge Garrison has an alert mind, an incisive diction, a strong, vigorous manner of expressing his views and is a valuable addition to the courts. He is not contented with the mere study of the abstract principles of law, but strengthens his mental capacity and enlarges his intellectual vision by general reading of the highest and best kind of literature.

George C. Ludlow was appointed June 18, 1895, to succeed Judge Reed and Gilbert Collins was nominated in February, 1897, as Associate Justice. Sketches of the lives of those two gentlemen appear elsewhere in this work.

A few facts connected with the personnel of the Justices of the Supreme Court are worth noticing. Every Chief Justice since the Revolution, with one exception, has been a Presbyterian. The very great majority of the Associate Justices have also been Presbyterians and many of them Elders in their churches. Nearly all who were educated at colleges, graduated at Princeton. There have been but very few small men, physically, among them. Chief Justice Hornblower was a small, delicate, slender man; with that exception, all have been of good size, well proportioned, strong and vigorous; none have been lame or halt or blind or deaf. Above all, not one has fallen from his high estate by moral derelictions, but each has sustained a high standard of morality, not only requiring it in others, but practicing it himself. It is not astonishing that with such men, the character of the judiciary of New Jersey has stood so high and that it has achieved so much for good order, justice and virtue.

CHAPTER XIV.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

CONTENTS.

Court of Chancery; Discussion in 1769, as to this Court, in Governor's Council; Opinions of Richard Stockton, David Ogden, C. J. Frederick Smyth, Charles Reed and Samuel Smith. Three Opposed Court; Two Favored It; Court Existed During and Since Cornbury's Time; Cornbury and other Governors Sworn in as Chancellors; Took Oath as Chancellors, or the General Oath to "Administer Justice Duly and Impartially;" Court at first Unpopular; Constitution of 1776 Recognized Court; Governor made Chancellor; Constitution of 1844 Made Chancellor Independent Officer; Change in Practice of Court as to Taking Testimony; Appointment of Vice-Chancellors; Names of Present Judges of Court; Sketches of Chancellors and Vice Chancellors.

On the 24th day of November, 1769, at a meeting of his Council, Governor William Franklin informed the Board that some doubts had

arisen respecting his authority to act as Chancellor and desired the opinion of the members thereon. No reasons were given for the found. ation of the doubts; the simple fact was stated and nothing more, as appears by the record. The matter was discussed and it was, at last, suggested that the question be referred to a Committee, which was accordingly done, and, in the meantime, Franklin was advised to sus pend all proceedings on the equity side of the Court of Chancery, to which he assented. The Committee was composed of five of the ablest men in the province, all members of the Council They were David Ogden, Charles Read, Samuel Smith, Frederick Smyth and Richard Stockton, four of whom were lawyers, one the Chief Justice and another, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Colony; the other two were leading lawyers of the time. The Committee was directed to report on or before the 14th day of May then next. On the 21st day of March, 1770, each member presented an independent report. So far as appeared on the records, there was no prior conference of the members of the Committee, but each had considered the question independently and presented his own opinion. Chief Justice Frederick Smyth, David Ogden and Associate Justice, Charles Read, the majority of the Committee, voted in the negative, holding that the Governor could not sit as Chancellor; Richard Stockton and Samuel Smith voted in the affirmative, asserting that there was and had been a Court of Equity in the Province and that the Governor was Chancellor and could sit as sole Judge.

The opinions of Stockton and Ogden were very learned and exhaustive, and abounded in quotations from the law books of the day. The Chief Justice gave no direct opinion on the question whether there had been a Court of Chancery in the colony, but indirectly admitted such to be the fact. He insisted that such a tribunal was necessary for the proper administration of justice; but, he argued: 1st. That there were no grounds for believing that a Court of Equity had existed in the province except by custom or usage and, while admitting that those facts ought have some weight, yet he doubted whether they were sufficient to prove that such a court legally existed, and claimed that the Governor of the province should be invested with authority to act as Chancellor by a commission emanating from a source competent to appoint.

2nd. As there was and had been no such commission, and, in his view, it should be a special commission and not a general one, the Governor had no right to act.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »