 |  | |
 |
|  |
 |  | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
|
Originally published in 1939
Some of this information may no longer be current and in that case is presented for historical interest only.
Edited by GET NJ, COPYRIGHT 2002
New Jersey is one of a half dozen States in which the equity or chancery
courts are still separated from the common law courts. The chief equity
judge is the chancellor, appointed by the Governor for a seven-year term
at a salary of $19,000 a year. The chancellor, in turn, appoints ten vice
chancellors for seven-year terms at salaries of $18,000 each. The vice chancellors, acting theoretically for the chancellor, sit individually at strategic
points throughout the State. As mentioned above, the chancellor is also
the presiding judge of the Court of Errors and Appeals. The Chancery
Court is assisted by numerous masters in chancery appointed by the chancellor. The Court of Chancery has been vigorously attacked and defended in
connection with its issuance of injunctions in labor disputes. Trade unionists and liberals have for years unsuccessfully sought an amendment to the
State constitution that would curtail the court's power. Mortgage foreclosures, divorces, insolvencies, and guardianships are other matters that
come before this court.
In the third judicial hierarchy the chancellor and his ten vice chancellors
constitute the Prerogative or High Probate Court. As the chief probate
judge, the chancellor is known as the Surrogate General or Ordinary; and
a vice chancellor sitting 0n probate matters is termed a Vice Ordinary.
Appeals to the Prerogative Court lie from the Orphans' Court, held by a
common pleas judge-another example of the crisscrossing of the New
Jersey judicial system.
The prerogative courts have jurisdiction over matters relating to wills,
administrators and executors of estates, guardianship, and the recovery of
legacies. Uncontested wills are admitted for probate before the surrogate
of each county. The surrogate, although he is sometimes thought of as the
lowest probate judge, is in reality nothing more than an administrative
officer.
Attached to the common law system is the important juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, which does not logically belong in any of the three
hierarchies. This court is held by separate judges in the four largest counties-Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Union. In all other counties, a common
pleas judge adds this to his multifarious duties.
Under New Jersey's juvenile court act no person under 16 is deemed
capable of committing a crime, although the Court of Errors and Appeals
has twice held that the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury renders the
juvenile Court (which does not use a jury) incompetent to hear cases involving "the malicious killing of a human being." The act, one of the
most progressive in the United States, allows wide authority to the judge.
At least in the four counties with separate judges, these courts are sharing
with those in only a few other jurisdictions in the country the distinction
of blazing a trail toward a new conception of juvenile delinquency and
perhaps of crime in general.
Unusual is the fact that all State judges, from the members of the Court
of Errors and Appeals to the civil and criminal district court judges, are
appointed by the Governor with the consent of the senate. In most other
States all or nearly all judges are elected. In spite of the allegation that
politics plays a part in these appointments, New Jersey courts have attained
a high standing. One recent study of the prestige of the highest State
courts gave a better rating to the courts only of New York, Massachusetts,
and Illinois. Moreover, there is a seldom broken custom of reappointing
justices of the higher courts regardless of politics.
Attempts to simplify the judicial machinery have been defeated for
many years. Since 1930 the judicial Council, consisting of the attorney
general and representatives of the courts, the bar association and the legislature, has been making recommendations for changes in the constitution,
the statutes, and the rules and procedures of the courts. Some real progress
has been made; but so far the council has been unsuccessful in securing
the adoption of its constitutional amendments, the most important of which
would create a separate high court of appeals in place of the present Court
of Errors and Appeals. This would have the result of ending the dual role
played by Supreme Court justices and the chancellor as both trial judges in
their respective courts and appellate justices in the Court of Errors and Appeals. The Judicial Council proposals would also eliminate lay judges, and
would create a separate court of pardons.
|
|
|
Return To |
|
|
