Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-02-15
TRIAL BY JUSTICES.
lsClSiOn In the Celebrated Mary Miller
Case Practically Reversed.
rnE NEW LAW CONSTITUTIONAL

the supreme court o' Appear" ="
pcridcs-Thc Prisoner May Elect
70 GO to n Jury-Grcst saving TO
tho Commonwealth.
The supreme Court OF Appeals yester-
day. In eject, reversed the old court III "''
Mary Miller case. thus estabhshng' VII"
tho assent Of the prisoner. the jurisd''''o''
police justices and justices OF the
had in certain criminal cases pr'or ~ -,
decision OF the old court, ana anu 'f
Ing the making operative Of the c'hS''''
,cn,l amendment ratified In NoNe''"''
last. ,,oo,,,o o
yarv Miller was arrested for keep'"k
-. ho,.o and tricd by a justice
81 ., the reare. acting under section f'V' -
~ ,A. Cosa NJ lSS7 The case was "ppo"''
a - .o,,r,v and circuit courts to the
81 suprcme court of Appear anu Wv
IA zion Of the const!tutionahty OF s"'u
n ,io, was raised The court oec'"e" '""'
q ,ho section tao@ WAS repngnaht 10 '"'
C...,t,,,lon and that sections 4lV' ana
n,> dls not relieve IL from such repus-
4 nancy Judge Lewis delivered the op'h'o"'
J.iec Lacy dissenting vigorously anu
g.. oner, of the decision was 10 III
.-..se enormously the criminal expenses
e,sc state. as II compelled trial 10y jury
g. DE offences enumerated IN 'he s'"''''
100 ,.oo- .aq
,r,c General Assembly session ls31- Wy
De-, order 10 cure the defect, amenued sec
,.n 4o, by inserting the words 'wheh-
.,~ tho prisoner charged with any ol the
f,s,r.. herclnafter-meDticned elects 10
D.. ,riod hy a iury." thus setting up ne"
s.e,vte. and under this statute the case
That va. decided yesterday came w.
John Brown. a negro. was s'',,'e -.
charged with stealing copy ol '"e ~.
,n.nd Dispatch. valued AZ cents ~
,,ss taken before Police-Justice Crutch-
feld ana. being found guilty, was sen
fance1 10 confinement In the city )aii i"'
fifteen days ,.,. a,1
Rrov-n.s counsel. George +. wise ana
Charles ". punstan. sued out "A wrlt oi
habeas corpus before the supreme 'oul
NJ Npueals. In order 20 make the case
,est ~ The constitutionality Of the ne"
,,rnvn va Epes. Sergeant of the city
a., Richmond Judge Keith delivered Inc
,ripion-an able and elaborate one-ahd
su the other judges concurren.
.,,,ruev- General Scott represented the
commonwealth. and advanced the same
c.gument he used in the Mary MllIe'
>.,>.
THE OPINION.
Tho opinion. after making statement
- the case says.
",oses involving the jurisdiction OF JUS
ttrs of the peace und"r thlS anu slI'''t's -.
st,.u,os have been frequently before tnls
,rnrf and in every instance. save III me
-ase of Mary Miller Us. the common,
eeelfh * Virginia hs. the VaiulS W vi
ih. Judgment based on the s'a'u'e mas
oeea upheld T.,
The opinion then cites several cases III
ooint. and continues
.I,,.r,,cb however as II does not
aurear that the constitutional qurst,o "
re under consideration WAS pItsei.'vNu ~
80 the court In any oi 'hose CaSrs, i. - -
-,rfan1e1 that they are not AUTHORITIES
.Irafrg upou this court. ana II Is con
-. ied that their weight as authority =
r.raircd for the reason stated. II Hoes
srpear however tna, ,ne ~, g'ISs'C f5s court.
"a Indeed uui, rlics the exercise or )u'
-isdiction hv all courts In All caSts,
whether specifically prHs'nt-u on ""fs' -, ~
BAT when IL appears that courts OF an
,r,i.. in the state. from justices OF the
r..-o 20 this court. have gone on uiin>
'.r,iutcllv tor many years 10 ekeISlSe
..rfsfiotiun under the statute ana thdt
-i,e ali thai time there has been no
3D.. entertained nor question raised as
f. the coustitutionaliy Of the iaN' w. ~
Id ttfs hss been IN Ihe presence VI aii
aldo and iuquisitve bar, a sipHs "
.r.rti1u "a raised that the attack ma
not iacn made uuOn the cunsututionshtt
or the law because. In the Judgment OF OF
the courts and Of the profession, no such
ground for objection existed.
Tile orlnlon mentions a number OF SINH
lar .asrs considered in sister States, and
resumes. ,.
THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED.
".rbe rr1nciple IN all these cases is that
statute which Confcrs jurisdiction upon
Justices OF the peace 10 Try such OF :
f.rtos as are embraced IN section tlVo OF
tne cod. is constitutional. provided Dy a
simnle procedure, "A trial by jury can be
lad upru appeal to a higher court.
Ia mo case under consideration not only
(. tie PROCEDURE simple. but II IL an
absolutely free and uniettered right OF
arn.al III. prisoner is brought before
fu.tt,c the warrant makes known 10
him the cause and nature OF tle accu-
sauon against him. he Is confront d WIN WIN
0ccueers and Witnesses, ne is Periliit''
10 call fpr evidence IN his favor. he Is
not compelled e. give evidence against
himself aIi d Judgment ls rendered
AGAINST him. II he feels mat the JUG
neut is igs' = submits TO II; II as
crlcved hy 70 n 2ppeals. and by the as'
s-rtlon Of rs right Of appeal the who're
forc- and effect Of the judgment IS ue'
rN.l from hls silence would have beer
a final iudgment. picadable In bar 10 any
future prosecution, FOR the same oHenct
has by MS .. become OF no erect. am
~ atind. ar free as before his arrest
slbiect only TO the requirement that h,
must sivc houd for his appearance IN
tho appellate court.
THE SUBSTANCE OF 1T.
'Now. what Is ID" substance Of al
this Does not the determination OF De
N.ah q. torn q nat hf.
an absolutely free agent wholly set al
naught the Judgment Just rendere'
against him and transfer 11sd IN The c6gIr2 SGnir3
the proc.ilngs before the justice init
proceeding preliminary 10 a trial
which is thereafter 10 take place IN th'
sppcllate court and divest II Of all simih
tndc "a a final trial? il seems 10 me iha
looking 10 the reality and not to the
frrn ~ thlngs. TO their substance anC
not 20 The names by which they are eau
- that that IS the conclusion TO Whicf
We are ne. .'rably driven.
Follow "ic accused one step further
when I'm obedience to his reCOgnlzance
be- presents himself before the trial court
under section 4i0S. and there we iind tha'
the language OF the statute Il me ac'
clsed shall he entitled to trial by 4
fury in the same manner as II he had
been indicted for the offence in SAID
court That is 10 say. ne mas the same
guarantee thrown around him TO secure
him fair trial by an impartial jury as
is given 10 all other persons accused OF
crime and he stands before that jury
innocent until hts guilt Is proved. But
~ Is said that the prisoner is entitled
10 speedy trial, and In the Mary Miller
case 90 often cited from ssth Virginia,
th- ~ora 'speedy would seem TO be con,
eidered as equivalent 10 immediate which
would have tendency 10 limit the dis
cretion ~ the Legislature in prescribing
the stages through which a prosecution
should pass from the arrest 10 the con>
Nction II the prisoner. | do not under
stand the word 20 have been 80 used In
the constitutional provision which is now
being enQuired into"
The opinion summarizes the procedure
In the enforcement of the criminal law
some time back, and more recently. and
adds.
'Thc utmost simplicity prevails while
every constitutional right IS carefully pre-
served. and the prisoner is secured a
speedy trial by jury. To my mind the
Legislature has taken ample and most
satisfactory steps 10 secure 10 the ac,
cused the night OF a speedy trial"
The opinion then takes up the case OF