« PrécédentContinuer »
PUBLISHED BY W M. & A. GOULD & CO.
AND BY GOULD, BANKS & Co.
144 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK.
Southern District of New York, ss.
- 5 FEB 1963
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the sixth day of October, A. D. 1824, in the forty-ninth year of the Independence of the United States of America, William Gould and David Banks, of the said district, have deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof, they claim as proprietors, in the words following, to wit:
"Reports of Cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court; and in the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors, of the State of New York. By Esek Cowen, Counsellor at Law. Vol. II.”
In conformity to the Act of Congress of the United States, entitled "An Act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the time therein mentioned." And also to an Act, entitled " an Act, supplementary to an act, entitled an Act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned, and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints."
Clerk of the Southern District of New York.
STEREOTYPED BY THOMAS B. SMITH, 216 WILLIAM ST.
ALEX. S. GOULD, PRINTER, 144 NASSAU ST.
THE legislature having repealed the remedy by certiorari from a Justice's Court, except as to the city of New York, the following volume will be found to contain but few cases on this subject. Perhaps they should hereafter be dropped entirely in our reports, except where they relate to the city of New York, or to the practice upon the writ of certiorari generally.
In relation to the more important and novel cases, I could have saved myself no little labor, indeed the greatest and most difficult labor of reporting, had I confined myself to the statement of the case, the points raised, and the opinion of the Court, leaving the arguments of counsel entirely out of view; but I found myself admonished, both by precedent and propriety, that such a course would be a neglect of duty; and it follows, that designedly to to give a very partial history of those arguments, would be so only in an inferior degree. They lead the mind to consider and understand the point of decision. They exhibit the doubts in which it was involved, and the difficulties to be removed-test the accuracy and weight of the decision-and not unfrequently are an essential link of connection and application between the case stated and the opinion of the Court. It is not unusual, both in England and in this country, for the Judge to content himself with simply giving the opinion of the Court, referring for the reasons in its support to the argument of counsel by which it was sustained.
Those acquainted with the character of the able counsel who grace the bar of the Court of Errors and Supreme Court, will not