Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1883-02-24

Brown ct al, ON an appeal. from the jndg-
ment of justice. Judge Faulkner rem
dared a yerg important decision, cons'ru-
ing the justices act OF 1881, ana the
amendment of Sec. Is, Art. Of the Con-
stitution adopted in 1850.
The question presented, was, the right
of party after trial ofhis cause III
Justices court by jury, and judgment OIL
the verdict, to have the case reSiewec oy
the Circuit Court. on All appeal taken un-
der Sec. 1853, Chapter OF the Acts OF leSi'
The provision Of the Constitution, re
lied upon by the Appellee is, "ln suits at
common law, where the value III cohtro-
yersy exceeds twenty dollars, exclusive
of interest and costs. the right OF TRIAL oy
Jury, If required by either party, shall oe
preserved; and in such suit before n JUS
tice, II jury may consis; of six persons.
No fact tried by jury shall be otherwise
re-eyamineG in any case Than accoruihS
20 the rules of the common law"
The Court held: that the Legislature,
recognizing the obligation OF this proVi-
sion provided by the I'D sec. OF chapter
sth. acts Of 1881. for trial by jury, in all
cases where the value in controversy or
the damages claimed exceeded $2o.Oo, ana
by the subsequent sections of said chapter,
from ~ to 81 inclusive, provided, in the
most detailed manner for the organization.
empannelling and control of the jury, the
rendition OF the verdict, and the grounds
upon which the same should be set aside
by the justice; and by section llo, except
Ell his judgment, upon such verdict, from
the provisions Of said act authorizing him
to set aside his Judgment within two weeks
from its entry upon his record. He held
this clearly showed the intention OF the
trainers of said act, to draw II distinction
between judgments rendered upon YER
diets, and judgments with' ut the inter-
vention OF jury-and that after judy
meLt on verdict, it was beyond the fur
Their control Of the justice.
He held that the appeal authorized by
section 1863 OF said act, did not embrace or
include judgment rendered by justice
OH the verdict of i jury-citing the lOSth
and 10th sections rs showing, that the
Legislature had used the term appeal, III
its legal and technical sense, the same be-
ing civil law proceeding in lis Origin,
and Iii fering from i writ OF error-whlch
was Il common law proceeding--in this,
that the appeal subjects both the law and
facts 10 review and Il retral, while n
writ of error removes matter OF law only
for re-examination. Cranch, Ill. This
view is fully sustained by the Judgment
provided by section l73 OH the appeal,
which judgment is rendered, after trial,
regardless of any proceedings which may
have taken place before the justice.
He held il this construction OF section
l63 WAS not correct, then, so far us 1t could
embrace or include judgments on verdicts
rendered by the magistrate, it was in vio-
lation of the 18th section article Of the
Constitution, which provides, mo TACT
tried by \ jury shall be otherwise re-ex-
amned in any case than according to the
rules of the common law" He held that
there could he no doubt of the construction
of that provision. 1t WAS adopted after =
similar provision of the Constitution Of the
United States, to-wit; the 9TH amendment
had been passed upon by the Supreme
Court Of the United States, and which
Court had clearly defined its guarantees,
and construed the extent of its prohibition
on the powers of the legislative depart
ment Of the government. He cited section
9ls of Strry's Commentaries Oh the Con-
stitution, showing the origin and reason
which induced the States to adopt that
amendment, and read from the opinion OF
Justice Story, in the case of Parson "s.
Bedford, Peters, AL, discussing and con-
STRUNG the effect Of the said amendment,
holding, that "the only moles known to
are the granting Il new trial by the Court
where the issue was tried, or to which the
record WAS properly returnable, or the
award of renire fdcias de nopo. by All APP
pellate court, for some error OF law which
interviewed in the proceedings"
lie held: there was no legislative au-
thority fo- an appeal, writ Of error, or
,upersedeas to the Judgment of Il mass-
trate on verdict OLA jury. The appel
late jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, un-
der Sth article section u of the Constitu-
tioa is not defined, but is left to the legis-
lature to prescribe. In this case it has
made no such provision. But the same
section Of the Constitution, gives to Cir
cult Court, "the supervision and control
of all proceedings before justices and 9TH
err inferior tribunals, by mandamus, prOhi-
bition, and certiorari." The principles
governing the proceedings OF certiordri, as
cited in the notes.in case of Duggen vs..
McGruder, II American Decisions 500, and
the very clear and able discussion of these
principles by Judge Green, in the case of
Dryden VS.. Sweinburn, Is w. va. 23+,
would fully sustain aud justify the use Of
this writ-in the absence of all other rem
edy-where the record of the justice show
cd error, without any appeal to Legislative
authority for the exercise of this power by
the Circuit Court. But he held further,
that the legislature of 1882, by chapter SO,
has clearly indicated its construction Of
The 18th section, article Of the Constitu-
ton, by providing a remedy, for review
ing any errors in the judgments Of magis-
trates rendered upon verticts, by provid-
t. 81. a. a., - "a. ~, rav;au oJ ,f,er GroT