Ex parte Johnson
3 Cow. 371
Opinion
The whole was a mere matter of discretion with the Common Pleas. Under the constitution, (art0 4, s. 7) they are the sole judges whether they will notice the charges preferred or not. They hold a constitutional power, with which we will not interfere. Besides, it is a sufficient answer to that part of the case which complains of a false return, that it is more properly triable in another form.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ex parte Johnson, 3 Cow. 371 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1824).
3 Cow. 371 (Ex parte Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In Re the Removal From Office of Droege
90 N.E. 340 (New York Court of Appeals, 1909)
People & Platt v. Stout
11 Abb. Pr. 17 (New York Supreme Court, 1860)
Fish v. Weatherwax
2 Johns. Cas. 215 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)
Judges of Oneida Common Pleas v. People ex rel. Savage
1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 325 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1799)