The record-union., 1891-11-26
TRIAL BY JURY.
Is it Constitutional Right in Misde-
meanor Cases2
The Question Which Police Judge
Cravens is to Pass Upon-Argu-
ments Thereon Yesterday.

| The question as to whether or not per-
sons violating city ordinances are en-
titled, as matter of right, to trials by
jury, was argued yesterday morning be-
fore Judge Cravens by City Attorney
hart and Clinton L. White for the peo-
! pie, and w. A. Anderson for the defend
ant, William Ellsworth. who is charged
with violating the midnight saloon-clos-
ing ordinance.
Mr.. Harris argument consumed nearly
three-quarters of an hour, and he cited
several authorities in support of his posi-
ton. He held that it was never intended
! that jury trials should be had in all cases
of lnfractions of city ordinances, the effect
OF which might be to clog the municipal
courts having cognizance of such cases,
and by disagreements of juries practi-
cally render nugatory and unenforcible
/ the laws Of the city, passed for the
| preservation of the peace, health and
| comfort Of the citizens.
such a system,' said the City Attor-
ney, would completely circumvent the
end and design of municipal organiza-
tion.'
The provision of the Constitution of
! California, that the right of trial by
| jury shall be secured to all and remain
| lnviolate," he said, referred to an ante
cedent right-a right that existed at the
time of the adoption of the Federal Con-
stitution, which was the common law
right OF trial by jury; that, therefore, in
| neither civil nor criminal cases could a
! jury be demanded as a matter of right,
unless it existed as such in such cases at
the common law. He cited authorities on
! this point, and maintained that the viola
ton OF an ordinance was only quasi
| criminal in its nature, and that the
! offender could not be subjected to an in
famous punishment, which was one of
the tests Of the right of trial by jury
Clinton L. White followed, citing
authorities to sustain the position main
tanned by him. He argued that such
of1enses were summarily tried under the
common law, and that jury trials in such
cases were against the public interests.
The courts have uniformly held, he said,
that where the right of trial by jury did
not exist at common law, it could not be
! demanded as OF right where the language
| of the State Constitution was the same as
or similar to, that of the Federal Con-
| stitution.
| Attorney Anderson for the defense said
| he conceded many of the points made by
| the opposing counsel, but contended that
| our Constitution expressly gives the
right of trial by jury in all misdemeanor
cases in the following language of Sec
ton of Article l.:
"A trial by jury may be waived in all
criminal cases not amounting to felony,
by the consent of both parties, expressed
IN open court"
He quoted the city charter, which pro-
vides that all violations of city ordinances
shall be misdemeanor or public offense,
ana then read Section $50 Of the Penal
Code, providing:
mo person can be convicted of a pub
lie offense unless by the verdict of a Jury,
accepted and recorded by the court, or
upon plea of guilty, or upon judg-
ment against him upon demurrer in the
case mentioned in Section l011, or upon
judgment of court, a jury having been
waived in a criminal case not amounting
to felony"
From all which he argued that to deny
person a trial by jury in any case
| where his liberty might be involved or
| ljeopardized, would be unconstitutional
and against the statute and the institu-
ton of free country.
City Attorney Hart briefly replied to
Mr.. Anderson, and Judge Cravens an
nounced that he would withhold his de-
cision until next Tuesday.