N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 348


STATE OF NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1947
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Wednesday, July 9, 1947 (Morning session)

ment of special terms of the Supreme Court. In other words, to do that which would expedite appeals. He could assign these matters back and forth, whether it's a new case or an old case; that would make no difference.

MR. BROGAN: What would you do in a certain case which is given them for rearguing before this special tribunal?

MR. SMITH: What was the exact language of that paragraph?

VICE-CHAIRMAN (reading):

"If the supreme court fails to hear any case within two months after an appeal is perfected, or fails to decide any case within two months after it has been argued or submitted, the chief justice is required to certify that fact to the governor, and the governor may appoint a special term of the supreme court from among the justices of the superior court, to act until the congestion of cases has been overcome."

I take it to mean that this additional court does not touch cases already argued before the first court. However, by reason of new cases coming in all the time, delayed cases might be delayed even longer. To avoid prolonging these delayed matters further, they would assign them to other judges, to expedite their clearance.

MR. SOMMER: That is perfectly clear.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: We don't have to worry about the meaning of that.

MR. SOMMER: We are interested in the purpose.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: I take it, by reason of the reference to the time element, that that meant they were not to remove any particular case that was once argued. That was one of the arguments against its adoption in 1942. Otherwise, it would mean that a particular case could be taken away any time and shifted to another court or special judge.

I don't think that was the purpose at all. I think it was intended to apply to cases that were unduly delayed.

MR. PETERSON: In your proposal as to mandatory retirement at 70 years, I take it that would be effective immediately upon the adoption of the Judicial Article of the Constitution?

MR. KERNEY: The effectiveness of it would lie with the Schedule section.

MR. PETERSON: Well, in the 1942 Constitution, had it been adopted, it would have been effective the second week in January, except that the judicial section in the Schedule set it for November 15, 1945.

MR. KERNEY: Yes.

MR. PETERSON: It would not have been deferred, I take it, more than a month?

VICE-CHAIRMAN: In view of the fact that we borrowed Mr. Kerney from another Committee, may I suggest that you wind up your questions?

Mr. Kerney, may I take this opportunity to thank you for your


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