The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-11-10
Right of Trial bY Jury Affirmed

The opinion ofsthe supreme cout, sit
ting in bank, in the hapeas corpue case OF
Jennie Fife, was received at the office of
the clerk in this city yesterday for filing.
THIS is the case which was brought to
test the right OF persons charged with
vagrancy to trial by jury. The superior
court of this county sitting in bank, in
an able opinion written by Judge Van
Dyke, recently passed on the question,
holding that the right of trial by 1ry ex-
listed, and could not be taken away, and
this opinion has been sutained by the
supreme court.
Another point is, however, involved in
this decision, and that is the special leg
lsIation in regard to the four-years t-nure
of office OF county officials. J. Marion
Brooks will make the present decision the
basis of contesting the four-years term of
office, with the exception OF county
assessor, and thinks that under the ul-
ing it can be knocked out on the ground
that it is special legislation, in that it
dues not include San Francisco and
Fresno counties in It's provisions. The
court, in its opinion says:
This IS petition for a writ OF habeas
corpus. The petitioner shows that she
was convicted in the police court OF the
city Of Los Angeles OF the offense of vag-
Fancy; that she appealed to the superior
judgment of the police court was affirmed
and that she did not waive Jury in the
said police court and expressly made a
demand in the superior court for Jury
and said demand was refused. Her con-
tention is that, having been tried aud
convicted, under these circumstances.
without intervention OF Jury. Der IN
prisonment is illegal, and that she should
Ds restored to her liberty upon habeas
corpus.
I'm the recent case of Wong You Ting
(106 l., 1861 we took occasion to inquire
somewhat fully into the right of Jury
in criminal cases, and our CONCLUSION
here was that the legislature might pro-
vide for summary proceedings without a
jury in cases OF sucn petty offenses as was
thus provided for in certain early Eng sh
statutes and in cases which are intrin.
SICally of similar nature and degree as
those mentioned in said statutes. Vag-
rancy is. we think, one of those offenses,
and the Legislature might provide Dy u
general law for the summary trial with
ont a jury OF persons CHARGED with SAID
Offense; but we agree with the superior
court OF Los Angeles county, sitting in
bank, whose learned opinion on The sub
lest was presented to us at the argument
here, that there is no such trial without
jury.
''C0nceding, however, thar the denial
of jury in such a case would be errcr,
for which the judgment should, on APP.
peal, be reversed by the superior court,
still the point is urged here that such de-
NAL does not raise question of jurisdic-
ton which can be considered on nabeas
corpus"
1ne court refers to the cases of Taylor
VS.. Reynolds and ex parte Wong You
Ting, and says that the question in those
cases was not raised.
Continuing, the court says: Upon a
thorC ugh examination of the question we
are forced to the conclusion that either in
civil or criminal cases the denial of a
trial by jury is merely error to be cor
Tecled on appeal and does not go TO the
jurisdiction OF the court so that it may
be inquired into on habeas corpus, except
in. those cases where a jury cannot be
waived, and therefore is a necessary con-
stituent part OF tue court.
The court holds that the denial bv the
lower court Of petitioners demand for a
jury was only error, and does not go to
the question OF jurisdiction. and therefore
cannot be received in the procceuin! Of
habeas corpus. The petitioner is re-.
manded ana this writ is dismissed.