Show JUDICIAL discretion AND responsibility EE IN the case ease of oconnell OCon nelI nell vs mos eliowitz gil e owl Z in in new yew york court of common pleas january 7 before judges daly maly robinson So binson and aud lawrence on appeal from judgment of judge fowler in the district court the doot doctrine rlue rine of judicial discretion was doicus discussed cd as thus re ported bortei in the tho new york merald herald I 1 george F langbein Langbe ln counsel for appellant appellant argued that if the un der taking offered was correct in form and the sureties therein were sus sufficient sup clent elent judge fowler should lit have ve signed the order of removal that he had no jurisdiction to render judgment or to take any further action faction in the cane case that he was and that his 7 tion was arrested except to adjourn referring n to the case of hogan vs bevlin devlin 2 daly IS he insisted further that the justice was bound to accept and approve abyo any one oue or more responsible sureties and that if the sureties were good jn law upon the face examination the tho justice could not from mere willfulness caprice or whim object or disapprove of them this doe trine trino he claimed is conceded to be law in the mo cashe of adams vs ives 8 new york supreme court be re ports 1 hun Hu bunin nin in the opinion of judge talcott the justice was to exercise A judicial discretion i a legal discretion to be exercised undiscerning in discerning the course prescribed by law when that is discerned it ig Is the duty of the courts to follow it it is to be exercised not to give effect will of t the be judge but to that of the jaw tripp vs cook 25 26 wend it must be a sound discretion dise disc relio rello as said judge brady in the tho case of hogan vs dev I 1 lin in thomas hs henry edsall counsel for res respondent argued that the justice tad lad had a right to satisfy himself and that in this case the J justice justlee ustice had stated lie he was personally acquainted quain ted with one of the sureties whom he would not net accept rhe the court unanimously reversed t the judgment the chief justice sta stating t ing ithac the sureties being sufficient su fal clent elent in law as shown by their sworn examinations the justice justlee was bound judicially t to 0 approve the undertaking and sign the arder of removal he adds further that a judge should have no private reason it must be a judicial reason and not an arbitral arbitrary y whim whimsical 0 or capricious reason I 1 in regard to judicial responsibility here is a paragraph from the washington sar scar nir mr air edward in lange lige convicted in inthe the united states circuit court of new york of an unlawful use of mail bags was erroneously sentenced by judge benedict of that court to fine and imprisonment the first part of mr jj langes anges sentence tence having been fulfilled the U S supreme court decided that that the second part imprison imprisonment men t was enforced without authority of law and the prisoner was discharged thereupon T hereupon he brought suit for false imprisonment A demurrer was set up b by y the he defendant on the ground gro und that a judge kasnot was not hot liable in a civil action for damages notwithstanding the commission afan of an error judge van brunt of the supreme court our has hag overruled this demurrer I 1 deci deciding ing that a judge of a court of general jurisdiction makes himself liable to an action when he attempts to enforce a j judgment which he knows to have been satisfied the ultimate decision of this case will be looked for with interest |