St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-04-02
IMPORTANT DECISION.
The Right Of Trial by Jury in Municipal
Courts.
From the LIE sueur Sentinel.

me ht9ht Of 1rtdt or jury IN Munsctpdt
Courts.
From the LIE Sueur Sentinel.
| The decision of Judge Mcdonald, in the
habeas corpus proceedings, ms tituted by
Mr.. Frank Morgan, setting aside the convic-
ton by Justice Taylor, for refusing the de-
fendant jury trial, is of considerable i'm
portance to our borough. 1t is quite lengthy
and, after disposing of several preliminary
questions of law raised, decides upon the
right of trial by jury, under our municipal
charter in the following language: u
1t appears, and is matter of record: and
/ find the fact to be, that upon said trial be-
| fore said justice the relator demanded trial
by jury, and it was refused. This / regard as
fatal to his conviction, and renders the same
and all proceedings after said refusal, abso-
| lutely void.
| Section of article one of our constitution
| defines the rights of accused, in this regard
as follows: SIN all criminal prosecutions
the accused shall enjoy the right to speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
county or district wherein the crime shall
have been committed" sc. This language
is certainly as explicit as it was possible to
make it is not within the power of the legis-
lature, or judiriary, to disregard it. The
right to trial by jury is one that in all trials
before justices of the peace, for violation OF
| the law of the state, must be conceded to
| every Observation-Disclosures he demands it or
not-unless he expressly valves that right.
Sec. 1873, Chap. 65, Gen. Statute. But respond
ent claims that said justice, as borough JUS
tice of the borough of LIE Sueur, had author
! ity to refuse the reator the right to trial by
jury; and that his right to trial by jury is
still secured to him by his having the right
to appeal to the district court. Let us con-
slider this claim.
Section 16 of Chap II, Gen. Laws of 1877,
| being the charter of said borough, is as fol-
| lows; ''The borough justices shall have
sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear all
mplaints, and conduct all examinations
and trials, in cases arising under any OF the
ordinances of said borough and shall pay
over all fines to the borough treasurer"
fail to discover anything in this section to
Justify such a claim and it is upon this that
the right of the justices of that borough
to override the above plain provision OF the
above constitution is based. There is nothing
in its language that excludes the idea that a
defendant, charged with violation OF one OF
the ordinances, is entitled to trial by jury
or from which it can be inferred. 1t says he
shall conduct all K *trials," which is
precisely what he would do if the trial was by
jury. In giving the justices of the borough
''sole and exclusive jurisdic-
tion'' over that class OF
cases, the legislature manifestly intended
thereby to deprive other justices OF the coun-
ty of the power to try such cases. Had they
Intended to thereby deprive defendant OF his
right of trial by jury, they would have given
those borough justices exclusive power not
to conduct but to ''hear, try and deter
mine"
Respondent cites Borough of st. Peter, VS..
Bauer, 10 Mimi. R., 327, in support of the
right of the right of the justice to deny rela-
tor trial by jury. AS to that case it would
only be necessary to say that it is in nc
sense parallel to this. In the first place, the
act under which the recorder of that borough
acted, said he had jurisdiction ''to hear, try
and determine'' all cases wherein any breach
of the ordinances were charged; secondly,
the supreme court simply held there
in, that as the recorder was mere
creature of the statute, and possessed only
such powers as were expressly given to him,
and that the power to issue a venire for a
jury was neither given or to be implied, fol
that reason, the trial by jury in that case
| was fOll plOSCCulHot GhN
entered on the verdict Of that jury was also
void: and this judgment was reversed, and
the deteadent discharged. The question as to
whether it was competent for the Legislature
to give the Recorder the power to ''hear, try
and determine" the guilt of the defendant,
without jury, was not involved in that
case, or passed upon. 1t seems, also, that
the Recorder had sufficient regard for the
constitution, to give the defendant, in tlrat
case jury trial, when it was asked regard
less of whether the charter was silent ON the
subject or not.
There are some cases q regret to say
which hold that, in prosecutions of the char
acter of the one in which relator was convict
ed, the right oftrial by jury is not violated,
if the right of appeal is unqualified and IN
fettered. These cases are referred to by
court and counsel, in State vs. Everett, ID
Mimi 439, and the point is there discussed.
In that case our Supreme court held, that as
the defendant there had to appeal as provid-
ed in the gen. stat, regulating appeals from
convictions before a justice of the peace to
the district court, the right of appeal wa S not
unqualified and unfettered; and the defend
ant, not having been tried by a jury of twelve
men, the right of trial by jury had been VIC
lated. This was precisely the case with relat-
or The right to appeal from the judgment
of the justices of the borough of LIE Sueur is
qualified and fettered, as in State VS.. Everett
as both would have to be taken under the
same provisions. See section AZ of borough
charter Of LIE Sueur.
1 confidently believe that when the ques-
ton comes squarely before our supreme
court, they will hold that the trainers of our
constitution meant what they said, when
they declared that Gin all criminal prosecu-
tons the accused SHALL enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial by an impartial jury"
and that tits burlesque upon language to say
that an specialization unqualified or not
gives a man ''speedy' trial; and that such a
trial as this was--before borough Justice
is not a criminal prosecution. No consider
alton of public policy, in behalf of any mu-
nicipal corporation, ever has, or ever will in
my opinion, justify such palpable violation
of the constitutional rights of the citizen.
This renders consideration of other points
raised unnecessary. The relator is dis
charged from custody. So ordered.
Coptaiu DimaIs Forgiveness.
New Haven Ct, Special.
The entire Salvation ARMY of NeW-Haven