The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-03-30
Maioriries In Juries.

pISmS COuEt Ol the tSIIllcty vi w CuACo-
day afternoon 1t is important to the
parties to the suit-H. A. HESS & Com
pany who are the plaintiffs and appel
lants, and MARGARET WHITE, admins
tratrix of the estate of GEORGE NJ. WHITE,
the defendant and respondent. But it is
of greater Importance to the public, be-
cause it involves question which has
bearing upon future litigation in this
territory.
court. the defendant obtained verdict,
but it was rendered by majority instead
Of all the jurors who tried it. Ten out of
the twelve were united in their decision.
The Utah statute, approved March 10,
1892 provides. sin all civil cases a YER
dict may be rendered on the concurrence
of nine or more members of the jury.
The appeal to the supreme court of the
territory is taken on the ground that this
is in violation OF the seventh amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
which provides that: "In suits at COM
mon law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved The
contention is that trial by jury means
a trial by twelve competent persons who
must be agreed upon their verdict.
RICHARDS, MOVIE & RICHARDS, for the
respondent, present brief which takes
up the objections to the majority princi-
pie in verdicts, and leaves very little of
them to be seen. Mr.. F. S. RICHARDS
argued the case in court. The points
made are these:
The provision in the seventh amend
ment applies only to the courts OF the
United States under the constitution and
has no relation or application to suits in
state courts. The states are left to regu-
late trials in their own courts in their own
way. A state cannot deprive person of
his property without due process of law,
but this does not necessitate trial by Jury;
judicial procedure regulated by the law of
the state is all-sufficient. This has been
decided many times by the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Territorial courts are not courts of the
United States any more than the state
courts are. The judges are appointed by
the President and Senate, but they are to
have jurisdiction of cases under the terri
torial laws. The district courts have power
to try cases under the constitution and
laws of the United States. but this does
not make them United States courts.
They are organized under the laws of the
territory which the legislature is author
lied by the Organic act to pass. This also
has been decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States, notably in the cele-
brated Englebrecht case.
In that case the ground was taken that
as it was an offense against the United
States that was to be adjudicated the
court was sitting as a United States court.
The act of Congress provided for grand
| Jury of not less than sixteen nor more
than twenty-three persons. The grand
jury that indicted the defendant was COM
posed of fifteen persons, under the laws of
the territory. 1t was contended that this
was not lawful grand jury. The court
of last resort ruled that the Utah court
was not United States court, though
given jurisdiction in United States cases,
but territorial court under the territorial
laws and therefore the grand jury was
properly empaneled under the statutes of
the territory.
The argument set up in this case is,
that if the territorial legislature had
power to prescribe less number of grand
jurors than that contemplated by the
Constitution, in a criminal case for the
violation of a United States law, why is it
not competent for the legislature to pro-
vide that in civil cases under the laws of
the territory, twelve men shall constitute
a trial jury, and three fourths may find a
verdict?
The meaning of the term trial by jury a
hundred years ago, or away back in the
time Of Magma Charta, may not be re-
stricted in the same sense today. Coun-
sci for the respondent argue that many
features and technicalities of former
Jurisprudence have been abolished and
improvements Lave been introduced in
keeping with the march of intellectual
developments.
The trend of modern legal thought is in
the direction taken by the Utah legisla-
ture on this matter. The idea that one
obstinate or bribed juryman may render
abortive an expensive trial and the con-
currence of eleven honest and intelligent
citizens sworn to render trae verdict, is
viewed as g. vexation and an absurdity.
Some able papers and lawyers have advo-
Gated the abolition of juries, believing
that one learned judge is more likely tc
deal out evenhanded justice than dozen
of the kind of jurors often chosen to pass
Judgment in important cases.
- -
A PETITION is before the city council
sI~;,, +h,+ , ,or+;o,, NJ tbe r,oro,, ooI-