The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1879-03-05
-splovc" Spiattcred.

Police Judgeship.
Before reading this, IL will be hest for
our readers TO reread what "Splove"
did saw, and also if at your command,
read all the acts, sections Of the Code
of Practice and Statute Law referred
10. for by SO doing, YOU will be better
enabled 10 understand both sides.
"oplovc" saws John Blackjack had
no right to trial by jury" We have
never either editorially or privately,
expressed an opinion on that subject.
We 10 not even know the substance
Of the ordinance he was accused OF
violating and would be very silly to ex-
press an opinion at random. In our
first notice of this matter we merely
mentioned the fact tina: Blackjack had
sued Morehead for refusing him a trial
BY jury.
'Splove" proceed. as follows, "Now
as 10 those indictments, there was at
the time Of the indictments. a person
ceiling sririluous liquors in said town
without y license, either from the
State or town authority, and you will
see bv reference 20 session acts, 1873.
vol. / page lSS. before any one shall
he authorized To sell spiriluous liquors
in said town. they must obtain Ii
cense from the Trustees (sec. ,. that
the Police Judge of said town, has ju-
risdiction TO try offenders for viola
ton of the State laws upon this sub
iect, sec. Z, that all penalties now
fixed by law. for infraclions of the
penal laws Of the Commonwealth,
shall he doubled. for all offenses COM
mRted within the corporate limi's of
SAID town. when any part of the PEN
atty is fine. tsec. 10
His reference TO section second. is
all right. but his construction Of sec
ton seven is far from correct. The
net referred to confers no new jurisdic
ton whatever upon the Police Judge.
The only part of said act that refer
to or mentions the Police Judge is
section seven, which is as follows:
81. ANY tavern-keeper. or any per-
.un hsving a license from the trustees
of said town. as authorized by sections
one and two Of this act, in addition 10
being suspended from their privileges,
shall. upon conviction before the po-
lice Judge ot said town, be fined one
hundred dollars, for violation of the
sta,e law or the laws governing said
town, or fc, violation of the rules
prescribed ior the g0vern-stf such
iaverns AMI saloons; but no person
shall be fined more than once for the
same oaense. In case the police judge
cannot legally try such person, then
he shall I've tried before the presiding
judge ofihe Muhlen5erg county court
Ii clearly appears from careful
reading of this section that there was
no inteniiOn or effort to confer any new
jurisdiction on the Police Judge, but
on Il contrary, it shows from il.
wording that the drafter thereof and
the Legislature that passed the act
had doubts of the Police Judge hav.
ing jurisdition and hence if they had
been aiming to give him new or in,
creased jurisdiction, they would have
done so. but instead they express theiI
doubt in the very section itself, and
say that I'm case the Police Judge
cannot legally try such person, then he
shall be tried before the presiding
Judge of the Muhlenberg County
Court.
But for sake of argument. let u,
agree that section seven gives the
Jadge jurisdiction to try persons fer .
violation of said act and infict upon
them the penalties pronounced in said
section seven. What is the use Of 3
Grand Jury! Section SOC of the
Criminal Code referred to by the
learned correspondent is as follows:
S306. In ,dsa: cases indictment no
n,ossary IN police courts. No indict
ment shall be necessary in prosecutions
Tor a violation of the bylaws or ordi
nances of a city or town, nor in other
prosecutions in police or city courts
unless the punishment of the ofienst
exceed a fine of one hundred dollars
or confinement for thirty days.
Section seven of the act referred t.
makes tn, penalty fine not exceed
ing 500 and no imprisonment and
the judge has no more need of Granc
Jury than a wagon has with the fiftl
wheel. Section 10 referred to in tho
quotation is as follows:
$40. That the penalties now fixed
by law for all infractions of the pena
laws of this Commonwealth shall bt
doubled fox all otfenses committed
within the corporate limits of said
town when any part of the penalty il
fine; but it it he for imprisonment,
that part of the penalty shall not b,
increased.
No Jurisdiction is here given or at
tempted to be given. and if it were
section 10 cannot and does not doubl,
the penalty pronounced in section
of the very same act. Such an ide'
j. rreposterous and s.not tenable fol
one moment Section seven il not 1
penal law Of this Common wealth, bd
a local law applicable to the town O