Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-02-15

not based upon a verdict Of guilty oy
Jury IL void under the laws OF the ,,,1, ,n,.eu
states This case OF Can3n Cans1n,a,ned upon
article 8 Of the amendments OF tne oom,
stitut!on which says that the accuseu
shall enjoy the right TO SPEEDY an,
public trial by an imparu,", mpn,, ne Language
OF onr Constitution is. ! submit. a,to,
eether direrent II does not deciare t''at
The trial Of all crimes shsI pe ny
Jury. IL does not declare Una. .ns A.. ~,
ccuaed shall enjoy the right to trial by
on imnariial Jury. but its language Is
that n man hath a right TO speedy triai
by an impartial jury. That is, he mas
legal claim, 10 a trial by Jury. triaI
hy q Jury is his privilege. The existence
~ ne presence OF q jury Is not made a
t,risdictIonal fact. without which court
Y not duly organized for the trial OF
criminals. as is the case in all courts OK
'"' MERELY PRELIMINARY.
Hitherto have considered this case
upon the law as found In the Code or
1857. and II has seemed to me that PIT
soners had not been denied. under the
law as II existed any Of their constltu.
tional rights; but the proceeding against
them before the justice was IN the ma
turc OF the jurisdiction exercised by an
examining court. unless acauiesced In by
them. and II was merely preliminary
and not an unreasonably dilatory pre-
liminary TO the final trial by Jury 10
which the prisoner had n free and unfet,
tered right. with every guarantee ann ,i
protection thrown around him to enahle
him TO submit his case 10 an Impartial
Jury OF his country. that In its essence
the judgment Of the Justice resteu upon
the implied assent OF the accused pc
cause one word Of objection upon MS
part annullei the judgment rendered and
transferred the controversy 10 another
forum. and 1 have been constrained 10
the conclusion that this statute IN no
wise denied or abridged the CONSTITUTIONAL
right of the citizen.
"Gf this effect is 10 be attributed 10 the
failure upon the part Of the prisoner 20
make objection 10 the exercise oi thr
Jurisdiction by the justice by Appearing
there from, q fortiori. would MS express
election TO be tried by the justice have
that effect? That prisoner may wave
many Of his constitutional rights ~ pe-
yond doubt The night TO triai py
Jury is only one among the several rlgnts
enumerated in section 10. article !. OF th-
Constitution. They all stand upon the
same footing: they are all necessary 10
the complete enjoyment OF tnat persona
liberty which IL our birthright anu WHICH
II is the duty not only OF the courts. Dut
OF every citizen. to jealousy guard. lhey
are all designed. and one not more thah
the other. to safeguard the accused III
all criminal prosecutions. so that no
man may 'be deprived Of his liberty eN-
cept by the law Of the land or inc JUG
ment of his peers. He cannot be COM
nelied to give evidence against himself.
and vet il Is clear that he may waiVe
this immunity.
The opinion then says: Il have no oiii-
Guilty in holding that the law as IL no"
stands is constitutional" expresses strong
convictions as to the value or the jury
system. and concludes: I'VE are. there
fore. of opinion that the writ of habeas
corpus should he denied and that inc
nrisoner should be remanded to the Gus
tody of the Sergeant of the city OF hlch-
mond
Trial by a Justice under the new statute
and the decision does not take away the
right Of appeal. The immediate practical
effect of the decision will be TO open the
way for great saving in the matter oi
criminal expenses.
OTHER OPINIONS.
other opinions were az follows:
Holleran vs. Meisil. etc. From the CIR
cult Court Of city of Richmond. Reversed
Judge Rely delivering opinion.
Clinch- River Mining Company vs.. Har'
rlson. From Circuit Court of Russell
county. Reversed, Judge Cardweli de-
livering opinion
Exchange Building and Investment
Company vs.. Bayless. From Circuit Cour'
OF city of Roanoke. Reversed, Judge Haf'
rison delivering opinion.
Justis VS.. Bohanon Motion TO dismiss
overruled.
Pope vs.. Transparent Ice Company, and
Home Building and Conveyance Company
VS. city of Roanoke. Rehearings denied
Preston VS.. West Lynchburg Land Com
pany. Appeal and supcrsedeas refused
Bell, for. etc. VS.. Farnviiie ana row
hatan Railroad Company. Petition to re-
hear filed.
John r.. Minor. Jr., and James f. can
non. Esqs.. allowed to practice as coun-
sci in this court.
Easley VS. Valley Mutual Life-Associa-
tion. Argued by John n. Opie, Esq. for
appellant, and Major T. c. Elder for ap-
Uel!ee.