N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 483

Thursday, July 24, 1947 (Afternoon session)

space of about six weeks in the course of a year. He had one patent suit, a monopoly case, in which the questions were patents, which lasted 16 weeks of trial. The government brief, I think, was 800 pages, the reply brief was 600 pages; the rebuttal was 300 more pages, and the argument after that took, I think, three days. So if I don't want to kill my beloved colleague -


MR. BROGAN: I'll bet you are glad you didn't get that 600-page brief case.


JUDGE MADDEN: Then, unfortunately, I was disqualified in a 13-week criminal case and he had to take that over, but I handled his cases in Trenton, with dispatch, I hope. But I don't know how many errors I made.


MR. DIXON: Judge, in your opinion is there any great difference between the experience and expertness that might be required between, say generally an equity case and a law case, than there would be betweeen a patent case in the federal court and a liquor case violation?

JUDGE MADDEN: If the system were such that it could be done, I think you may get better results, to be honest about it. I think you may recognize fundamentally that if you get in the way of thinking about bootleggers and O.P.A. violations, etc., your mind gets into that groove, you might say for at least 24 or 48 hours, and you don't just disassociate that and get ready to take up other involved issues in equity and law, etc. You have to go through a waiting period to clear your mind, and then you can take up different work. That is what I mean.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?

MR. SOMMER: That also applies to the practice of law.

JUDGE MADDEN: Yes, of course.

MR. HENRY W. PETERSON: I would like to ask a question, Judge, if I may. I would like to obtain your views, because there have been other representatives from South Jersey, because of the respect I have for yourself and the members of the Camden County Bar Association, and knowing that the Camden County Bar Association has given a lot of thought to the recommendations they made - what weight do you give to the proposal that judges in the top court would retire, let's say, at a very substantial pension and have life tenure, and other judges would have life tenure in the general courts after seven years? Don't you think that would attain the independence of the judiciary that seems to be the desire of everyone?

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