The morning times., 1896-11-04

There is no tribunal in the District which
between $50 and 500. By ID decision
rendered yesterday Justices of the peace
have no jurisdiction in any suit for money
over $50, and because Of an act Of Congress
the District supreme court is barred from
trying any cases involving sims between
SO and 500
III other words there is no remedy ut
law in sums above $50 and up to 500.
Test cases Recently have been numerous,
affecting the jurisdiction OF justices of the
peace. Judge Cox, Some Weeks ago, de-
cided that justice had not the right to
instruct IL Jury or reverse the decision, and
yesterday Judge Bradley wen, further and
declared upon the same grounds that
justice could not lawfully give any person
Il trial before jury. This latter de-
cision involves all amounts, bat in sums
over 500 there is remedy i'll the District
supreme court.
This is one Of the most important de
cisions rendered in the District.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
The case before Judge Bradley was that
Of Jacob II Kengla, represented by W. II.
ShOes aud Heyden John son, again ): Roland
c Booth. In Tie tI:al fcfOTe justice O'NeL
Mr.. kengla was made the defendant in a
sut for S1GO. Judgment by default was
given TO Mr.. Booth.
Subsequently, Mr. kenala, by q writ Of
certlorari, carried the case to the District
supreme court, and moved that the jUd.s-
ment of Justice O'Neil be GuashCd, ON the
ground that he could not give Eengla a
cOmnion-law trial, as guaranteed a citizen
OF the United States by the Constitution.
Judge Bradley quashed the proceedings,
<'sked, and explained that under the Con
stIIution every person Is given the right
of jury trial in sums over $50. This is
known as the eOrdInary yCOrnmOn-law jury trial
provided for every one.
THE DECISION.
Judge Bradley now declares jury trial
IN justice courts is not accorded residents
of the District because Of the cnactments
concerning their jurisdiction.
In the first place the law Ill the District
requires Il person desiring jury trial
before justice OF the peace to give bond
for the cost OF the jury. This, Judge
Bradley holds. is hardship and was not
intended by the Constitution.
Judge Bradley then suStains Judge Cox
in saying that justice cannot instruct a
jury OF reverse its finding That being so,
a justice cannot give anyone a jury trial,
as provided for by the Constitution. The
law is very specific against justice in
structing jury. Judge Cox said the Justice
serve order at u jury trial, but could not
rule on the evidence or set aside the
Jury's verdict. 1t is principle of law
that if the judge has no control OF the
jury he cannot give the constitutional jury
trial.
THE DECISION.
Justices were formerly given Jurisdiction
up 10 500 only By a recent act Of Con
gress this jurisdiction was enlarged to 5000,
but, as the District court had authority III
sums over SloO, this additional power was
only concurrent.
Judge Bradley, in his decision. contends
that, as everybody is entitled to a Jury
trial iii sums over $50, and as the justices
cannot give that trial, they have no jaris-
diction in any controversy over $50.
Persons can seek relief in the District
courts in any sum over 500, but under tie
sum and over $50 there is no remedy
The case will go To the court of appeals
md its decision Will be watched with much
interest.
As II involves a constitutional question
there is 10 doubt it will go to the SG-
premc Court OF the United States.
1t is said the only relief is to appeal To
Congress.