Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-06-09
IMPORTANT RULINGS.
The Supreme Court Saws, 10 Regard
10 Civil Jury Trials,
ATnREr.FoURrus VERDICT HOLDS
IN Affidavit Cannot Fill thc Place OF
An Undertaking On Appeal
Other business.

a "IiiitEE fuuRlii5 NthIitT'.
The courts opinion ia .hg c,so Of H..
A. Hesa and company, appellants, W
Margaret White, administrators VI the
estatc Of George NJ. whiio, respondent,
was rendered by Chief Justice Zane.
There was an important point In.
volvcd In this decision, M affecting the
verilc,s ofjufles.
Au action was originally brought by
the appellant 10 recover l.om the
respondent upon a written guaranty
10 pay for goods sold aud delivered 10
ono Frances Brown, tho same having
been executed by tho respondents
intostGic. Tho jury OF twelve EN-.
panclvd brought In verde, signed by
ten Of their number, the ether two
having diusouied and refused 10 Sign
H. The appellants objected to the
entry Of Judgment upon this ver-
diet, "tcoausn the verdict was rendered
In manner not authorized or war.
ranted ~ the constitution unj laws of
the United Siaiua applicable to tho
Territory OF Utah, hut contrary there
10, In that Hnid verdict was not a
luminous one, but wai ugg.bl 20 hy
ten Ut said Jurors only, and b. tuUGcl ne
Illegal anu OF no otiect.b Judgment
was entered upon thr veri.'I. where
upon motion for "a new trihI was made
anu this same objection urged.
The motion was, however, over.
ruled, and hence tho pselent appeal.
The clause 0f the constitution relied
upon was the Seventh article OF
amendments thereto. Alter quoting
the various sections, law dirrcuy
bearing on the case, the court pointed
Out that until lsB2 tnH statutes of the
Territory by express enactment, 10.
quired the verdict OF the larry tu Do
unanimous. The original Hrt of ib7U
permitted tnis unHnimily g. Do waived
by Clnsclt OF the parties. but the nct
uf 1855 was silent upon rueh waiver.
IL was upplrout the sole question mere
was Wuctnuf tho provision fora yer.
uict by thtoD-lOurtns Of the Jury ia IA
civil case was "a rlghtful subject OF
legislation consistent with thp
Constitution OF the United States,
providing that the right OF trial hy
jury should be pfUttfVt-. la other
wOris, did the words "trial by Iury,0
a. used la the seventh ameudmant oil
tue Constitution, mean Jury which
rendered a verdict by the unanimous
action OF its twelve member? UnauI.
NIFTY Of action WIS not considered L
constituent part Of trial 10y jury by the
trainers OF tile California constitution
of 1879, which provides ia section
seven Of article /. "Iho right OF trial
by jury shall bo secured 20 all and IT,
main iuviolato; but IN civil actions
threu'iOurths Of Jury may reLder "A
verdict" This was not Irererylng the
right OF trial by Jury invlolate, N a
trial by jury In civil action required
unanimous action by the mrmbsrs
Of the Jury. The court remarked
however that one Of the signs Of pro-
gfCss was the provision for veruic
by thfet-iour,hs Of Jury In civil
cause, aud whenever this provision
had been tried II had proved a distinct
benefit such provision was simply
"a change In the procedure OF applying
legal remedies. lt was general Ia M
application; II was fair and Just 10 all.
No mans property rights were Injured
by it,and no man could be said 10 have
u vested right In the unanimous action
0t a Jury any more than the fact that "A
jury was Gncienuy required TO DO a
freehOlder. All litigants could waiye
In civil trials at common law
and under our contribution this
unanimity OF verdict. IL they could
do this, then II was not one of the
requisites which must be preserved In
order 10 preserve "A Jury trial In civil
actions. For these reisous-bscaus
society progressed and modes ami
legal procedure must change with that
progress, because this enactment was A
Gust aud reasonable expression OF the
public will" because it was calculated
10 Do great benefit to all classes OF
liugants, because II reached Justly,
fairly Rnt impartially 10 all classes OF
men, because II was claimed only 10
be an infringement Of "a broad ana
general statement la the Constitution
which ought not 10 be no narrowly
construed as TO bs bulwafk
against all progress, the court
held that this law waA rightlul
subject OF logislation. The judgment
VI the lower court would be gfilfmsd.
All the judges concuued.
The opinion was very lengthy, md
the foregoing Is but a syuOpsis, en-.
bodying It's main features.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Judge Smith, as the mouthpiece ofth
court, delivered the opinion in the case
Of Sophia V. Benson, appellant, va
NichOlnh Anderson otial, Respondents.
A motion was made 10 dismiss this
appeal for tie reason that no under.
taking on appeal had been given; but
an AFFIDAVIT was died la the office OF
the clerk Of the distTict court, which.
say their hOnOrs, was no doubt intend.
ed 10 take the place Of an undertaking.
A statement was given 10 the effect thai
the all iavit was made by virtue OF the
act OF the Territorial legislature ofIsg9.
and TO be found on page 1877 OF ths
published laws Of the last session. The
iirst four suctions OF this act were INV
quoted and tho court hold that this
statute did not authorize the affidavit
10 be filed IN lieu OF an appeal bond, Tor
these rogsOns; LIST, only the plaintiii Ia
allowed 70 file 1t, while either PARTY
might appeal; End, 1t Is only allowed
in lieu OF the deposit or seoufity Tor the
commencement OF nm actor; 8rd, il is
Intended only 10 give "a party AN on.
10 obtain Judgment in the dis