The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-06-13
TRIAL BY JURY IN SEIZURE CASES

a distinguished temperance lecturer. an,
lawyer at that, in the course of an ad
dress before the Rutland Reform club
Sunday evening, stated that year or 81
ago, an off ter who summoned a coroner
jury in the case of man found dead /,
west Haven, was made The object of tn,
most singing sarcasm by the newspapers
for not knowing that coroners jury wa.
not allowed in Vermont; but, sad be, re
ferring TO the Rutland lager beer case
" have yet failed to see any sarcasm ON 4
jury summoned to decide whether lsge;
" beer is intoxicating" There ia no pro.
VISION in the statute for jury, and in
this case, the jury were, in fact, so man,
outsiders, with no authority in the Gaze. -
There has been but one other case of the
Kind in the state In Chittenden count,
jury decided case of this kind and II
was carried to higher court. Judg,
Wheeler decided that the jury had NJ
power in the case. The jury then had
no authority in the case. The trial wa,
farce which l hope may not be re-
"peated."
Very sarcastic, surely, and the at,emp,
10 slur the justice, jury and counsel OF
both sides, as well as the piess, is evident
Leaving the counsel, jury and justice to
answer for themselves, if they see fit. W,
desire to say that we iidiculed the authoti-
ties of Benson, not of West Haven, fo,
summonlng Il coroner's jury, because tn,
law did not, and does not, authorize such
jury. We refrained from "stineing ear.
"casm, or any other kind of sarcasm. in
reference to the intervention Of iu,y in
the lager beer case, because we believe that
1t was the legal right of the claimant to
have such jury, and we remain of tho
came opinion slill. Moreover, unless We
are grossly misinformed, which We believe
10 be impossible, the lecturer, as an attor
ney, was, at the time of the trial, of the
opinion that the Intervention OF jury, t.
determine whether or not lager beer WAS in.
toxlcatlnR, was proper aud legal, and be
remained of that opinion up to Saturday.
the day before the address. We believ,
that the opinion entertained by him up t.
Saturday was sound as a matter of law
and that the one enunciated by bin Sun.
day was unsound and erroneous.
II is not true that the statute expressly
provides that ''the justice shall be salts
" fed that the liquor is, or is not, intox
icating. The statute provides that if il il
shown by satisfactory evidence that the
liquor was intended for sale contrary to
law, that it shall be adjudged forfeited,
and the justice shall order its destruction,
or etc. But SO it is provided that justices
shall shear and determine" all offences for
selling and manufacturing liquor, for keep
ing it with intent TO sell, and for being in.
toxlcated. The language is as broad in the
one case MS in the other. Moreover, Sec
ton 30 of the statute relating to the traffic
in intoxicating drinks-General Statutes D
declares as follows 'In
g all trials for offenses against this chapter
% the respondent shall be entitled to trial
" by jury" And this statute does not
stand alone. The statute entitled "Of jus
u tees of the peace"-General Statutes, p
S82, sec. 43--enacted al the same time as
he statute relative to the traffic in intox- |
eating drinks, declares that "Either party |