The herald., 1895-10-13

clearly provided tnat all offenses amount
ing to felony must be tried by d jury, and
all amounting to mlsdomeanor must be
SO tried unless jury is waived Chief
Justice Beatty in his concurring opinion
OF that case says In my opinion, the
legislature has the power to provide for
summary proceedingsto enforce municipal
regulations without jury tiial, but l
cannot discover that sucn power has been
exercised. BY sections 1430-1435 of the
penal code, relating to proceedings in JUS
tices' and police courts, and section 1912,
relating to proceedings in the superior
court, the defendant in criminal
action who pleads not guilty is entitled
to demand that the issue be tried by
jury. In other words, the statute, irre-
spective of the constitution, secures the
right. The evil involved is one which
may we'll engage the serious attention of
the legislature, but as long as the law
remains as it is, see no escape from the
conclusion that in any criminal action
prosecuted in the name of the people of
the state the defendant must be tried by
Jury, unless in cases Of misdemea nor
Jury is waived
Although that case arose under a mu-
nicipal ordinance, the court says that the
offense was rather against the public at
large than merely against the city. and
that it fell within the legal or common
law notion of a crime or misde neanOr.
In ex parts Wong You Ting, on ha abeas
| corpus. (l06 Cal. 296, } the case of Taylor
VS.. Reynolds is cited and approved. This
latter case went up from this county.
The petitioner was held in custody by the
chief of police of the city of Los Angeles
| under a conviction in the police court OF
the offense Of practIcing medicine with
! out having procured certificate firm the
board OF examiners, contrary to the pro-
visions of an act to regulate the practice
| of medicine. The court say: The only
question before us necessary to be decid-
ed IS whether or not the appellant was
entitled to a jury trial" And it was de-
cided that he was entitled to a jury tiial,
and the conviction without such trial was
illegal and void. The court remarked
that the language used in Taylor VS..
Reynolds, where municipal ordinance
was involved. applies with much greater
force to Il case like the one at bar, where
the offense charged arises under a gem
eral state law"
1t is claimed. however. that jury
trial is not secured by the constitution
for the trial of the ofsense of vagrancy,
and that the so-called Whitney act, un-
der the provisions of which the police
court OF this city now acts, authorizes the
trial uf such offenses without jury.s.Th
act in question was introduced in the leg
islatufe by Senator Whitney of Alan eda
(hence its name) in 1885, and is entitled
IAN act to provide for police courts in
ID
habitants, and to provide for officers there
uf" statutes 1885, p. 2l3. Al the time of
the passage of that act the city of Oakland
was the only city in the state falling
within the class designated in tho title
of the act-that is, having a population
between 30, 600 and 100. 600. The consti-
tutionalIty of the act, however. was sus-
tanned by the supreme court in People
VS.. Henshaw, rs Cal. 436. Elk parte Hal
stead 80 Cal. All, WAS an application to
be released on habeas corpus from i'm
prisonment on judgment by the police
court of this city, rendered on the 5th
day of February. 1891. The supreme
court in it's opinion say that at that
time and long prior thereto, the city OF
Los Angeles was city having more than
30, 600 inhabitants and less than 100, 900
inha b!tants; and the court held that
the city of Los Angeles. SO lar as
it's police courts are concerned, is now
governed by the provisions of the Whit
ney act In the charter of this city,
adopted by the legislature, statutes of
1889, p.465. provision vas made for police
courts-AIt. 10. p. 4S6. This provision.
however, wa. declared unconstitutional
in the People VS.. Toal, Sc Cal. 1888. Our
police court, therefore. exists by virtue
OF the Whitney act, as already stated.
The purpose of that act. however, as its
title and provisions show. was to provide
for police courts and their officers in
cities of a certain grade. The jurisd,c-
tion conferred on the police court by the