#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Edmund Wolf, Defendant.*

(Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,

March, 1898.)

Violations of the Liquor Tax Law in the Greater New York — Jury trial — Misdemeanor.

A person; charged with the misdemeanor of violating the Liquor Tax Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 112), in the borough of. Brooklyn, is not entitled to a trial by jury but may legally be tried at a Court of Special .Sessions held by three magistrates.

The defendant, á saloon-keeper, was arrested and brought before a police magistrate in the borough of Brooklyn, charged with a misdemeanor in illegal sales of liquor in violation. of the Liquor Tax Law. Laws 1896, chap 112, § 31. The magistrate held the defendant for trial at the Second Division of the Court of Special Sessions, in the city of New York. The defendant now applies to a- justice of the Supreme Court to order the cause removed to the grand jury of Kings county, there to be prosecuted by indictment, basing his application upon the ground that, under section 2 of article I of the Constitution, he was entitled to be tried by a jury as a matter of right. It was urged, in opposition to the applica*95tion, that by the 'amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1870 (section 26 of article VI, now section 23 of article VI), Courts of Special Sessions were given such jurisdiction in the cases of misdemeanors as the legislature might provide; that the people adopted this amendment to overcome the effect of the decisions of the Court of Appeals (Wynebamer v. People, 13 H. V. 378; Hill v. People, 20 id. 303), which held that misdemeanors were triable by jury, as matter of right; and that the legislature, in the new charter, having given exclusive jurisdiction, without jury trials, to these courts to hear and determine charges of misdemeanor committed in said city, the act was within the legislative power under article VI, section 23 of the Constitution, as interpreted in the cases of People ex rel. Oomaford v. Dutcher, 83 H. Y. 240; People ex rel. Stetzer v. Eawson, 61 Barb. 619; Devine v. People, 20 Hun, 98.

Alfred C. Cowen, for motion.

Isaac M. Kapper, assistant district attorney, opposed.

*

 Received too late for insertion in proper place.— [Rep.

Dickey, J.

Since the Constitution was amended in 1870, providing that Courts of Special Sessions shall have jurisdiction of the -offenses of the grade of misdemeanor, as may be provided by law, it has been held in People ex rel. Comaford v. Dutcher, 83 N. Y. 240, that when the Constitution conferred authority upon Courts -of Special Sessions to try misdemeanors, it meant the courts in -question as they were and might be constituted by the legislature, whether they authorized a jury of six, *or othenoise.*In this case "the legislature has provided otherwise by Special Sessions of three magistrates. It was also held in People ex rel. Murray v. Justices, 74 N. Y. 406, that the constitutional provision, giving a party .a right of trial by jury, does not apply to petty offenses triable before a Court of Special Sessions. I think all this class of cases, violations of the excise laws, should be speedily tried before the Special Sessions, and should not be removed. The grand jury has ¿plenty of work now, and should not be further burdened.

Motion for certificate of removal denied.