Wilmington journal., 1870-07-01

pressly, that "the- punishment OF theso
| shall not exceed" &C., but taking the lar
guage OF the act in connection with fla
CONSTITUTION, 1T seems TO us that a p,ain
and necessary implication limits the nun-
ishment as clearly aud expressly as words
could. 1t must be noted, that the not in
question, although in one sense it is a
as it instigates them, it ia not nonal Ia,.
In the sense of requiring to he strictly con
strued. 'oH-
What the evil was which was sought to
be remedied by the act, is plain That the
times and attention of the courts Of record
were unduly occupied in the trial of pot
~ ohences, was complaint long before
tne apohtlon OF slavery, whether or not
| there was any actual increase of sueb of
fenses after that advent; there was certain
ly vast increase of them cognizable bv
the Courts previously, tho great majority
OF such oftenccs when committed by slaves.
were tried in tho domestic forum: alter
wards all these were poured into the
| Courts. and occupied their time ami atien-
ton to the exclusion of civil action. 50
completely, that it amounted in maov
cases to denial OF Justice. Now, the de-
termination OF controversies respecting
property and civil rights, is as much due
to the people, as the trial of persnns
charged with crimes; and tho Courts must
do both, to satisfy tho people with
them and with the government. Nor was
the evil of an exclusive Jurisdiction in the
Superior Courts lesa to tho offender than
to the people generally. Often peraons ac-
cuscd OF petty crimes were unable to find
bail and were imprisoned before trial much
longer than was esteemed an adequate pan
ishment after they were found guilty. The
expense of the system was ala0 most bun
densome. The slow and costly process OF
trial by court and Jury is only required
in cases of difficulty or importance. Con
siderations like these have nuflicod in every
State and country to give n summary lulis-
diction of petty offences TO local officers
In this case the dangers to be guarded
against were two:
First, the Justice might punish with un-
merlted severity even within tho narrow
limits OF his power; this was provided
against by giving to the defendant the
power to appeal. Second, tho Justice
through ignorance, or by corrupt colius-
ION with the offender, might punish the
greatest offences with mere nominal
penalty, to the scandal of Justice, ana the
detriment OF public morals; this was pro
vided against, rs it is IN the English law,
by requiring that in every case the pnlty
injured should make tho complaint, when
he thinks tho offence so slight as to de
mand no punishment greater than what a
Justice can iDtlict, tho State may we'll
agree TO consider it so; and if he thinks
otherwise, the Jurisdiction remains with
the Superior Court. The act has not been
in force long enough TO permit All opinion
of its elects from experience, but IL seems
well adapted to the ends in view, viz:
1st. To relieve the Superior Courts "f
the pressure of petty business, and give
them the time to perform tho important
duties for which they were more especially
created. %. 10 relieve the tax -payeln
from heavy burden of unnecessary costs;
and Sd. To give petty offenders speedy
trial and Cf guilty n speedy but light pun
lshment in the place Of long imprson-
ment on the mere suspicion Of guilt.
%. The second objection is more diiii
cult and, indeed, we think 1t fatal to tLe
plea. The plea does not state TINT tho at
fence of which the Justice took lnrisdic-
ton was committed within has Township.
and it could not do So as the case aiates
that the county had nof been divided into
townships. It is familiar principal that.
when the judgment Of an inferior conIt
not of general Jurisdiction Is pleaded
everything must be shown nannflary t.
Givo tI.o 0Onrt jurisdiction. Tho act. eec
tlon CAT, expressly confines the final lniis-
dlctlon of the Justice to offences commit
ted within his township; il was competent
to the Legislature 50 to OOniins it, and we
cannot contend it. For this reason We
think there was error in the Judgment be
low. Let this opinion DO certified
Per curiam.
A true copy-test:
VIM II. BAGLEY, CLERK.