The New York herald., 1878-09-24
JURY TRIALS.
IMPORTANT DECISION BY CHIEF JUSTICE
CHURCH AS TO TaE coNsTITUIIoNALITY OF

IMPORTANT DECISION BY CHIEF JUSTICE
CHURCH AS TO TaE CONSTITUTE IoNALITY OF
TIE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS.
One Of the most important decisions that has been
given for time by the Court of Appeals has just
been rendered in the case Of John Murray VS.. the
Justices OF the Court OF Special Sessions. Its chief
importance consists IN its settlement Of the question
Of tho urisdiction OF the latter the trial Of
prisoners without jury Since the organization Of
the court this has been an open question After con-
victions wIts OF habeas corpus have been taken
without number, rendering the convictions OF this
court comparatively nuihy The case OF
Murray who convicted of assault and
battery and sentenced for four months to the
Penitentary, was made test case, and on
its result hundreds OF prisoners have been aLxiousy
looking forward to their discharge In the expectation
that The Appellate Court would decide that u trial
without a jury is unconstitutional. Mr.. William +.
Kin,znG, counsel Tor Murray. presented tho case TO
the Court OF Appeals before its adjournment last June
He contendcd that the Court Of Special Sessions is
unconstitutional, no provision being made for jury
trial; the right of trial by jury, he claimed being
secured by the constitution not only OF the but
oil the United states, upon principles OF pubic policy
and that be waved District Attorney Beu-
jamin X. Phelps c,mbated the views OF tho counsel
The opinion IN the case, which Is given by Chief
tica Church. beng special interest not only TO the
legal profession but 10 the public largo, given IN
full below and Will bo seen, sustans the const-
tutionahty of the Special Sessions:-
CHIEF JUSTICE cHuRcns OPINION.
The reiator arrested and before police
tice on charge o. Assault and battery and being held
special sessions OF the Peace and in default OF bali
Jaase 6onosue hassa corpus @ns av. oa 10 u
before so GGs y S % aa, s'n Tor ne ad
was convicted and sentenced to ioqr months npr,son
constitutional right Of trial by jury. he did and
hiatt he ltut Tho
petty OFFENCES T% rnx;.on srts before coar, OF spee.
IN s''s' all s.sos Which has BEEN heretofore aSs
used ss aas Gsv Ts
sions have existed since i744 ana nave been continued
present time Jury was permitted in these courts until
at @ the % s % % 1 Ss
the accused anu this is the law throughout
accused person sse.: before the Court Of
e ssd s S he .S h. i sa he
against oy Indictment and is entitled to constitutional
trial BY such q jury uOt used - tho time u tho
special offence charged against tho
II & cnsi and no as Nsx sss so na
s ras the the . s S
at wa. ass tss The S"
g $
@ Ss unsons.i.u.isssI hs,s tho s.s;or % gave bail
Sessions Ieci.ed in the recSgas.nce he had
elected TO DO tried HOW the giving
bail could the special Sessions OF ursdo
tion transfer the to the General Sessions be-
yond my comprehs nson am inclined to think that tho
bail given before Judge Donohue authorized and
usr Revised Statutes no. section 20 1he
broad. and in applies al But II
authorized the appear OF the reatOr for trial
Specai sessions, where he had elected be
aried, voluntary and rendered
equally effective as II he had been brought in from
ja process also insisted organ.
the Court OF special Sessions is
The the hrst point substantially answers this
observed that charged with offence,
although triable by the Special Sessions compelled
there He be tried IL the Court
Sessions by jury but he may elect tried by
Special Sessions. and II he 81 elect he be tried
without jury in the city Of New YORK, and elsewhere
he may nave tho statutory jury Of six As sucn
the Jury trial pretervsd by that instrument does
apply No reason is perceived why there should be
distinction in respect to tho right 10 demand the statutory
jury In the special between the OF
the other counties OF the state The rule should
be uniform ana the light o trial by such jury least
is in accordance with the spdt Of our laws than
trial by the Court The distinction between city and
this regard Is incongruous and unjust, but
have control that question No Is alleged
have occurred the trial and think tho Court had
Jurisdiction. Tho judgment must De affirmed.
AN APPEAL
Mr.. kintzng intends by writ Of error to carry tho
tho Supreme Court OF tho United States Tor
final adjudication.