N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 474


STATE OF NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1947
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Thursday, July 24, 1947 (Afternoon session)

I've watched it and it may be a great advantage, and possibly it would. It would possibly be a whole lot harder to sell the public.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?

MR. EDWARD A. McGRATH: I would like to ask one question. As I understand your set-up, you would have the law nisi prius cases tried in the county court and your equity nisi prius cases tried before the Chancery, abolishing the Circuit Court, as such. Now, assuming that this Committee found that the Court of Chancery, as such, was not to stand and that there was to be a general statewide court of a different character, would you then think that the law cases ought to go in that court as well as equity cases?

MR. TITZCK: Into which court?

MR. McGRATH: Into the new court of statewide nisi prius jurisdiction.

MR. TITZCK: We feel that only the law cases and criminal cases should go into that general court, but that Chancery should remain.

MR. McGRATH: That's what I understand. You feel that way. But I am suggesting that if this Committee or the Convention found that there should be a statewide court of original jurisdiction for the trial of equity cases - not our present Court of Chancery - would you then think that that court should have law as well as equity cases?

MR. TITZCK: It would be very difficult for us to come to that point.

MR. McGRATH: You don't want to abandon the idea of separate courts?

MR. TITZCK: Yes, but even to conjecture upon it, I would say, would be outside of my authority.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Thank you very much.

MR. REINERS: I would like to answer your inquiry specifically. Mr. Titzck is at an unfortunate disadvantage because at the particular meeting that this question came up he was out of town.

MR. SOMMER: I put it for questioning.

MR. REINERS: I would like, for the benefit of this Committee, to say this: At our deliberations several of the committee members urged that the Chancellor's appointment of the Vice-Chancellors should be restricted and that they should be appointed by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as are our other judicial officers. We went into the rationale of the functioning of the Court of Chancery. We considered the fact that the Chancellor was the man who exercised the King's conscience and that the Vice-Chancellors, as well as the advisory masters and special masters, all acted for the Chancellor. It would be inconsis-


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