The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-06-13

:" to suit before a justice of the peace
shall be entitled 10 a trial by jury"
However 1t may have been before that
time, the act of 1S70-Laws of 1870, D Q5,
No. 5G-makes claimant to intoxicating
liquors which have been seized, party to
the suit, by providing that he shall file "his
claim 10 writing" and directing that, in
case Of judgment of forfeiture, the court
shall render judgment against him, in be-
half of tho state, for the costs and expen-
ses of the proceeding.
1t is not true that there has never been
but one other case of the kind in the state
a jury has, before this, been called in to
determine whether or not liquor said to be
intoxicating, or alleged to bo kept with the
intention Of selling in violation of law, in a
justice court here in Rutland, and, also, in
Arlington, and in Middlebury, as well as in
other towns in the state. The Middlebury
case was, if we remember correctly, rela-
tive to lager beer or something called wine,
ard will be remembered by the witty re-
mark made by the claimanN after it was
decided not to be Intoxicating, that his
business was ruined because no one would
drink 1t after ascertaining that it was not
intoxicating. Neither is it true, in the
sense Intended hy the lecturer, that 90 in
Chittenden county jury decided case
g of this kind and it was carried to high
" er court. Judge Wheeler decided that
the jury had no power IN the case" Let
us see what this Chittenden county case
really was.
BY virtue OF warrant issued out Of the
city court Of Burlington, bottle of bran
dy and some other liquors were seized, and
one Ralph L. Ray and another appeared
as claimants, and demanded q jury trial,
ardicA acas rcfased, and the case taken TO
III u me city court in refusing jury
trial, but not because justice Of the peace
alone must be Satisfied" They held,
what every one was supposed to know,
that the city court was simply creature
of the statute, that its powers, jurisdiction,
stc. were therein defined, and that it
could not assume any powers not therein
contained, or do any act thereby prohibit
cd. The statute creating the city court of
Burlington-Laws Of 1868, p. 162-ex-
pressly declares "that there shall be no
90 trial by jury in said court except in
'civil actions" The supreme court very
held that the proceeding looking
to the seizure and forfeiture of intoxicat-
ing liquors, or that instituted by the CLAIM
ant, under the laws of 1870, could not pro-
perly be called a ''civil action" and that,
therefore, the city court was expressly pro-
hibited from allowing trial by jury
This is all there was of the case. The
court did not decide, or intend to decide,
that under the search and seizure clause of
the law relating to the traffic in ntoxicat-
ing drinks, claimant was not entitled to |
: jury trial in justice court. That oues-
ion was not before them. They simply
declared that the city court of Burlington
could not allow of jury trial in such a
case, because the statute expressly prohib
ted it. This was made more evident in n
ubSequent case-State u Favdec Clorsn,
z Vermont Reports, p. 2Sl--on charge
or keeping Intoxicating liquors with intent
o sell in violation Of law. We have al
eady seen that the general statutes relat-
ny TO justices of the peace allows every
party to have trial by jury, and that the
liquor statute expressly provides that in all
offences against that chapter the respond
mt shall be entitled to trial by jury, and
10 one, we venture to say, would be found
o deny that person charged with keep
ng Intoxicating liquors with intent to sell,
'tc., is entitled TO jury trial yet this
jloran claimed a jury trial in the city
curt Of Burlington and was refused. This
ase, too. went to the supreme court, and
was decided that the city court of
Burlington has no power to grant a trial
by jury in criminal case" The lager
eer case was not before the city court of
but before a justice of the
eace, aud the several statutes, taken to-
ether, would seem to give claimant the
ght to trial by jury.