The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1853-01-05
Opinion OF Judge Curtis on the Rhode
Island Liquor Law.

CIRCUIT CouRr, Providence, Dec. so
Judge Pitman read the opinion of MIR
Justice Curtis in the case of VIM II
Greene VS.. Nathan NJ Briggs ct al. The
action was replevin for certain spiritu.
GUS liquors committed to the defendants
as constables of the city of Providence
by an order of the Court of Magistrates
to be destroyed according to the provis
ions of the Act for the Suppression Of
Drinking Houses and Tipping Shops. u
The adjudication of the case involved
important questions, arising under the
constitution and laws of X. Island. Judge
Curtis, in giving his opinion, cited the
10th and 18th sections of article LIST OF
the constitution of that State, which arc
as follows.
! Sec. 10. In all criminal prosecutions. tn,
accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
puDlc 'rial, by an impartial jury to be infor-
med OF the nature and cause ofthe accusation
TO be- confronted with the Witnesses agans,
nm, to have compulsory process for obtain
ing them in his favor, TO have the assistanc,
Of counsel in defence, and shall be at liberty
to spcnk for himself. nor shall he be deprived
OF life, liberty or property, unless by the iudg,
mcnt OF his peers or the law of the land.
See 10. The right of trial by jury shall re-
main involatc
lie said the meaning of these two
clauses was that, I'm civil causes a trial
by jury is TO be had in those classes of
cases in which it had been practised
down to the time when the constitution
was framed, and such trial is to be sub
stantially in accordance with such modes
of proceeding as had then existed. or
might thereafter be devised by the legis-
lature, without impairing the right itself.
But in all criminal cases the right to n
trial by jury, accompanied by the other
privileges enumerated and defined, is alb
solutely to exist"
After stating the substance of sections
IL, IL, and l3 of the Act for the SUP
preston of Drinking House 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 a trial by
jury, the party must give security in a
sum not less than S200,with two sufficient
sureties, to pay all fines and costs, which
might be adjudged againt him, and must
subject himself to the hazard of having
the fine inflicted by the Justice of the
Peace increased ve-fold, if the quantity
of liquor seized should exceed, as in this
case it did exceed, FIVE gallons. In the
constitutional provision that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or prop
y,unless by the Judgment of his peers
or the law of the land, /" the phrase ''thc
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-
mitted" The act also conficted with
the clause requiring that the accused
should be Informed of "the nature and
cause of the accusation" This act did
not require that any particular person
should be charged, IS in the case at bar the
complaint charged no ono. 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
bad. The accused had not only an alb.
solute right to trial by jury, but also
a right to be so charged that when that
trial takes place the jury should pass up
ON the whole charge. But the act pro.
yided in the case of an appeal, where the
liquors seized shall exceed five gallons,
if the final decision shall be against tho
nnn1llnnl La shan L. :..la..I ~ -