N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 272

wonder if you wouldn't want to comment on that, Mr. Wurts?

MR. WURTS: Oh, yes, overwhelming. When it did come to a vote, everybody said "Aye." I mean, there was no question about it. In all other matters we had to have a rising vote, in which the vote was rather close among the members present. I would say on that phase of the matter that the Bergen County Bar Association has between 285 and 300 members - that was the number on the last census - and we have about 500 lawyers in the county. This article, this diagram, which I have here, in its original form did not contain the County Courts or the inferior courts, except the statutory. It was mailed to each and every member with a notice of a special meeting, and everybody was surprised at what we were going to do. We had, I think, about 45 at the meeting. It was a hot night after a very hot day - the hottest day of the summer. We assumed that those who didn't come agreed with us, and of those who did come there we had a very large vote in our favor. There was only one question there on which we had to have a standing vote. Does that answer your question?

MR. McMURRAY: Yes.

(Off-the-record discussion)

MR. WURTS: I don't believe Mr. Lasher mentioned this. Our original recommendation had suggested a seven-year term originally for the members of the highest court and the members of the Appellate Division, with a reappointive term of 14 years. Our Association took the matter out of our hands and directed us to submit a recommendation that the term be fixed by the Legislature. At the same time, I think they left in our draft the provision of seven years with a tenure for the judges of the Law Division, the Chancery Division and the County Courts. Of course, that raises the County Courts' tenure two years over what it is now.

I think that has covered everything.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Wurts, did I understand you to say in a passing remark that you did not favor a review as a matter of right in all cases?

MR. WURTS: Oh, I think that everybody ought to have one appeal, on final judgment. I don't think you ought to go up on miscellaneous motions or practice motions, except to the extent that the law permits. Now, for instance, you ought to be entitled to appeal from an order granting an injunction against you, or something like that, where a right to property is involved, or where somebody strikes out your pleadings as not presenting a proper cause of action, or refuses to strike out pleadings as not containing a cause of action - you ought to be allowed to go up to a higher court on that. You ought not to wait until the case is over on things like that. We think that everybody, except in unusual cases,


Previous Page in Book ********* Table of Contents *********** Next Page in Book