The Middlebury register and Addison County journal. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1883-1885, 1883-02-02

B-The Supreme court for Rutland
county has just rendered decision OF
some moment in habeds corpus proceed
ings instituted in behalf of Bridget and
James Kennedy and Patrick Ready
These parties were convicted, at trials
had before a justice of the peace and a
jury of six, Of dealing in Intoxicating
liquors and otherwise violating the pro-
hibitory law; and the penalty provided
by statute was imposed upon each. The
respondents wished to appeal. but not
procuring the required bail within the
time allowed, were fully committed to
the House of Correction. 1t was claimed
by petitioners counsel that respondents
before justices have the right to appeal
to the County court without restraint
and on the other hand it was averred
that the right of appeal was based upon
the respondents giving bail for appear
ance at the County court The Supreme
court reviews the legislation on the mat
ter and says:
When, therefore, we look at the course
of legislation upon this subject, it is
made apparent that the Legislature has
never undertaken to make the right to
appeal dependent upon any condition
whatever, except that it be demanded
within two hours. Again, article 10 OF
our bill of rights declares that lin all
prosecutions for criminal offenses per-
son hath right to q
speedy public4rial by an impartial jury
of the county," NOR can any
person be justly deprived of his liberty,
except by the laws of the land or the
Judgment of his peers" The jury here
referred to is the COMMON law jury of
twelve men. 1t has many times been
held by this court that if an appeal be
accorded to respondents who are in
the first instance brought to trial before
justices of the peace with jury of six
men, this article of the bill of rights ID
not infringed, and it is equally clear
that if no appeal is allowed, the respond
ent is deprived of the mode of trial
given him by the organic law. IL is not
supposed, nor supposable, that the Leg
islature intended to violate this provision
of our constitutional provision that is
found in the constitution of every State
declaring right that for centuries ha:
been recognized and adhered to by oul
English ancestry with the most passion
ate devOtion-by the enactment of the
statutes under consideration. If these
provisions are to be held to have such
effect, they are clearly unc0nstitutiona
and void. But We are clearly of opin-
ion that the statutes mean no such thing
and that the Legislature when it declar.
ed in plain language that the respondent
In criminal causes may appeal, mean
precisely what it has SAID. This view o.
the statute is in accord with the obvious
import of Its language-the apparent
justice Of the case and the obvious powel
OF the Legislature.
In the cases of Bridget Kennedy
Jmaes Kennedy and Patrick Ready,
appears by the records of the Justice be
fore US, that these respondents several.
demanded an appeal to the County cour
from the judgment rendered agains
them by the justice, and that the justice
refused such appeal unless they furnish
ed bail-failing to do this, the justice
issued final process to carry his judg
ment into execution-herein was error
The justice should have passed the case
to the County court, and if the respond
ents did not find security for their ap
pearance in that court, should have he'll
them In custody until such security wa
furnished. The petitioners, being un
der the judgment and sentence of tn
justice. are entitled to their discharge
and it is so ordered.
Other questions were touched upon b.
the court, but the main point was tina
stated above. The decision in no wis
affects the constitutionality of the pre-
hibitory law or laws, as some down
country papers seem to think, but refer
merely to question of practice whc
might arise in trials before justices unde
sections of the statutes not relating to tn
l,or1r affio