The New York herald., 1869-04-18
SUPREME CouRT-CHAMBERs.
Important Decision Regarding the Constitu-
Courts.

Important Decision Regarding the Constitu.
tion Of a Jury-The Power Of .Jusiices
Before Judge Sutherland.
me People e1 rel the Metropolitan Board OF Health,
cs. Thaddeus H. Lane Justice, dc.-In this case the
Board Of Health brought two actions before Justice
Lane for penalties OF them being against Coroner
Ranney for not making the proper reports to them
OF death. The aggregate Of penalties amounted to
for penalties under the Tenement House
act, and amounted to 500. The Coroner joined
Issue S ti,,.d and jury insisting that
tiOn. BY the decision Of Justice Lane. who decided
he had no power 10 empanel jury OF more than
joining issue, also made the same demand, and Jus.
tlce Lane rendered similar decision IN his case.
subsequently the Board OF Health applied to the
Supreme Court for mandamus In each case to COM
pei Justice Lane to proceed The motion was argued
Judge Sutherland has now rendered Judgment to
the following efect-The suit against Ranney is
brought under section OF the act OF 1857, extend
ing the authority Of the District Courts the coec
tlon Of penalties not exceeding $3.50. The
District Courts are statutory courts, and the
he could not hold court with twelve Jurors.
The real question was, therefore, whether the of
1857 and other acts authorizing the trial Of in
Justices courts was constitutional. The clause OF
the constitution Of 1s4e relied by the defendants
was this-"The trial by jury in all cases in which it
has been heretofore used shall remain involaie for.
ever, but jury trial may he waived by the parties
IN All civil cases in the manner to be provided by
law" There was no doubt that this meant common
law jury OF twelve men. This had been held by the
Court OF Appeals in several cases. buthey had also
held II was not the purpose OF the provision to
enlarge the practice or use OF trials by jury Of
twelve men. Trials without jury or with a jury OF
six men were known before the adoption OF the
constitution Of 1916; there had been many acts
OF this KIND. In 1913 justices OF the peace with
less nan dollars In isa4 @ VI %as su ems
tended TO fifty collars. This was adopted In the
asS In @ s sxdsS to
acts did not include New York city, but they were
matters where the trial by common law jury had
city the act OF 1918 had provided for trials In assist
ant Justices courts with jury Of but six when the
claim did not exceed twenty-five dollars. The act
OF 1920 extended this to fifty dollars. the Revised
Statutes continued this jurisdiction. After the con-
sttution OF is46 various changes were made in the
names but not In the essentials OF these inferior
courts, the act OF April, 1857, extending their
jurisdiction to $3.50. Judge sutherland, there.
fore, decides that as to Keer's case, being
but for $780, there is question OF constutonalty
and trial can be compelled with but six jurors. As
act OF 1857 does not violate Ranney's constitutional
right 10 trial OF the issues by common law jury OF
twelve men, for by the third subdivision Of the third
section OF the act he had and has the right at any
time after issue joined and before the trial, TO re-
move the action to the Court OF Common Pleas,
upon executing an undertaking TO the plaintiff, with
one or more sureties to be approved by the justice
again to him in the Court OF Common
Pleas. do not think that these terms
upon which he can have jury Of twelve,
should be regarded as such clog upon his constitu.
tional right TO trial by jury Of twelve as to be
violation OF II. Moreover, Ranncy did not claim a
right 10 jury OF twelve at the time the issue was
Joined, nor until after several adjournments, but at
the time issue was joined he did demand trial by
Jury, which meant such jury trial as he could have
IN tnat court Now, am not sure that It cannot be
SAID that Ranney waived any right to Jury OF
twelve otherwise than by complying with the terms
mentioned in section three Of the act OF 1867. Upon
the whole think both motions should be granted
without COSTS but the mandamus in the case OF
Ranney must be that Justice Lane try and dispose
OF the action with jury OF six, unless Ranney re-
move the action to the Court OF Common Pleas un-
der the act OF 1851 before the commencement Of the
trial In the District Court.