Case ID: hill_1/html/0355-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court, Cowen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Duffy vs. The People.
    The constitution of this state, (Art. 1th, § 2,) relating to the right of trial by jury, &e. has no reference to proceedings intended merely to prevent the commission of offences.
    A statute authorizing a magistrate, summarily and without jury, to convict one who has abandoned his family, of being a disorderly person, and to require from him sureties for good behaviour, is not unconstitutional.
    Error from the New-York common pleas. The suit in the court below was against. Duffy, on a recognizance taken before a justice of the peace, conditioned for the good behaviour of one Dayly, towards the people, &c. for one year, The recognizance recited, that Dayly had been convicted of being a disorderly person, viz. one who had neglected to provide for his wife, &c. It was taken May 18th, 1838. Duffy pleaded, among other things, that Dayly’s conviction was by the justice alone, without a jury, contrary to the 7th Art. of the constitution of this state. Demurrer to this plea, and joinder. Judgment was rendered for the people in the court, below; whereupon Duffy sued out a writ,of error.
    
      C. O'Connor, for plaintiff in error.
    
      A. L. Robertson, contra.
   By the Court, Cowen, J.

The constitution, in its language concerning trial by jury, and courts proceeding according to the course of the common law, (Art. 7, § 2,) evidently has reference to cases wherein an issue is joined, which may be followed by verdict' and judgment; not to that class of cases wherein the law. has interposed means of preventive justice. The statute of 1833, (ch. 11, § 7,) merely adds one to the class of disorderly persons, and authorizes a single magistrate to deal with him in a summary way, as all others of this class have long been dealt with; not to punish him for a crime committed, but require him tó give security that he will not commit a crime. This and the like, are not cases in which the trial by jury has ever been used.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
       See Matter of Newell Smith, (10 Wend. 449.)