N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 539


STATE OF NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1947
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Wednesday, July 30, 1947 (Afternoon session)

MR. HANNOCH: Let me put it this way: In the original draft that I submitted in behalf of the State Bar Association, we did not so provide. We provided that the question as to whether or not the review should be of right should be a matter left to the Legislature, because there is a difference of opinion as to whether certain matters, particularly municipal matters, are matters of right. We felt that the matter should be left to the Legislature. However, you have seen fit to say that their right to prosecute the action is a matter of right, and frankly I don't see an awful lot of objection to it.

I recognize that in municipalities a municipal official may say, "Well, if I just awarded a garbage contract and a man can go ahead and review it, everything is tied up." Well, everything is tied up a lot of times. You merge a corporation or you try to recapitalize a corporation. Somebody files a bill in Chancery. Nobody can stop that. The mere fact that a man starts his action to review the award of a garbage contract does not carry with it a stay. The proceedings go on just the same. It seems to me that in our philosophy of democracy, a man ought to have at least one shot for his white alley. That is the thing that he is entitled to have.

I think this phraseology will meet the situation. You have it, and if you will give permission, I shall leave a copy of it here.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. HANNOCH: May I ask you just one other question which was brought to my attention the other day? I have not been able to get the answer to it, and some question may come up about it. I am referring to Section III on page 6, or Section IV, in which you say (reading):

"The Supreme Court and the appellate division of the General Court may exercise such original jurisdiction as may be incident to a complete determination of any cause on review."

Does that mean that if a case is in the Supreme Court and it develops that some additional testimony ought to be taken, perhaps on a subject on which no trial was had, that the Supreme Court by the exercise of original jurisdiction can meet that problem?

VICE-CHAIRMAN: We expect so, subject to the right to trial by jury, and that, of course, would be a matter of judicial determination.

MR. HANNOCH: All right; we didn't know.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Laddie

MR. JOHN D. LADDIE: Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee:

My name is John D. Laddie. I am from Newark, a member of the Essex Bar since 1911, member of the Essex County Bar Association, State Bar Association, and American Bar Association. By way of indicating that I have given more than ordinary thought to this


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