The Literary echo, and Pawcatuck advertiser. [volume] (Westerly, R.I.) 1851-1854, 1853-01-06
The Liquor Law.

The opinion of Judge Curtis, in the
case of VIM. A. Greene, was read in
the Circuit Court, (held in Providence,
Dec. 30,) by Judge Pitman. Judge
Curtis, in giving his opinion, cited the
10th and 18th sections of article lst of
the constitution, which are as follows:
SEC. 10. In all criminal prosecu-
tions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a speedy and public trial, by an Impair
tial jury to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation, to be con-
tirmed with the witnesses against him, to
have compulsatory process for obtaining
them in his favor, to have the assist
ance of counsel in his defence, and shall
be at liberty to speak for himself, nor
shall he be deprived of life, liberty or
property, unless by the judgement Of
his peers or the law of the land.
Sec. Is. The right of trial by jury
shall remain involute.
He said tho meaning of these two
clauses was, that in civil causes a trial
by jury is to be had in those classes in
which it had been practiced, down to the
time when the Constitution was framed,
and such trial is to be substantially in
accordance with such modes of proceed
ing as had then existed, or might there
after be devised by the L. gislature
without impairing the right itself. But
in all criminal cases the right to a trial
by jury, accompanied by the other priv
ileges enumerated and defined, is abso-
lutely to exist
After stating the substance of sections
IL, IL, and l3 of the Act for the sup
preston of Drinking Houses and Tip
pling Shops, he stated that. they were in
conflict with the Constitution in several
particulars. The conditions of appeal
were an infraction Of the right to trial
by jury. In order to obtain trial by
jury, the party must give security in a
sum not less than $500, with two suffi-
cient sureties to pay all fines and costs
which might be adjudged against him,
and must subject himself to the hazard
of having the fine inflicted by the JUS
tice of the Peace increased five fold if
the quantity of liquor should exceed, as
in this case it did exceed, FIVE gallons.
In the constitutional provisions that no
person shall be deprived of life, liber-
ty or property, unless by the Judgment
of his peers or the law of the land the
phrase the law Of the land' had been
construed to mean by due process of
law
This provision of the act also conflict
ed with section 18th of the Constitution,
every man being presumed innocent
until he is pronounced guilty by law, no
act of security which is not necessary to
secure an accused person shall be per-
mittcd. The act also confictcd with the
clause requiring that the accused should
be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation This act did not re-
quire that any particular person should
be charged, and in the case at bar the
complaint charged no one. The process
was defective also for want of certainty
in specifying the liquors to be seized.
1t was also defective in not charging
fully the crime upon which trial was to
be had. The accused had not only an
absolute right to trial by jury, but
also right to be so charged that
when that trial takes place the jury
should pass upon the whole charge.
But the act provided in the case of an
appeal, where the liquor seized shall
exceed five gallons, if the flal decision
shall be against the appellant he shall
be adjudged " common seller" and be
sentenced as such, so that he might be
convicted of this higher offence without
being charged with it, and without a
trial by jury of one of the facts essential
to constitute it. But even if the pro-
ceedings against the person and the
property, the complaint would be still
so deficient in the requisite certainty
as to be bad for that cause.
He consequently held the order of
forfeiture invalid; first, because there
was no sufficient complaint; and Sec
ondly, because the plaintiff was deprived
of his property by criminal prosecu-
ton, in which he neither had nor could
have, a trial by jury without submitting
to conditions which the Legislature had
no constitutional power to impose. The
Court also thought the order not simply
voidable, hut absolutely void the mag
istrates having no jurisdiction over the
proceedings. And they gave judgment
for the plaintiff on the demurrer, with