Evening star., 1896-11-03
P WER OF JUSTICES
Common Law Jury Trials Not Possible Before
Them.

Judge Bradley today rendered a decision
OF the greatest interest and importance rot
only to the legal profession, but also to
the public holding that in jury trials before
justices OF the peace here the constitutional
rlSht to a common law jury Is not given
ana th.tt that fault is not cured or remedied
because ne can, on appeal to to the District
supreme Court secure jury trial
Inc decision was rendered in the case of
'tcob H. kengla against Roland c. Booth.
In the trial below. before Justice of the
feace ONei Mr.. Booth sued Mr.. Kengla
for the recovery of 500 last August.
Judgment by default was rendered against
Mr.. kenSia. but subsequently. through A.
tCrheys w. H. Sholes and Hayden Johnson
Mr. henSla petitioned for a writ of GER
tiorcri, that the case might be considered
ny the District Supreme Court.
The Arsumcnts.
The writ was issued, and recently the
case was argued before Judge Bradley by
Messrs. Sholes and Johnson on behalf of
Mr. henSla, the petitioner and by Messrs
Francis A. Stephens and Samuel r. Church
for Mr.. Booth. the respondent Counsel
for M. kengla contended that the proceed
ings before the justice of the peace should
be Quashed because he had been unable to
obtain before the justice Of the peace his
constitutional right of trial by common
law jury.
In dispOsing Of the case TODAY JUDGE
bradley called attention to the fact that
by the Constitution of the United States
a party is entitled to a trial by a common
law jury where the amount in controversy
IS $40 or more. But, he further explained
before party here in trial before JUS
tee OF the peace can have a jury trial
he must give a bond to cover the expense
Involved in securing the attendance of a
jury. That. held Judge Bradley, is a hard
ship not contemplated and not sanctioned
titled. in the first instance under the Con-
ututlon. as matter of right to a Jury
where the amount in controversy is $40 or
more Then, too. Judge Bradley referred TO
not authorized to instruct jury a de-
cision rendered by Judge Cox few weeks
ago, the jury before the justice of the
peace being able to do as they see fit
therefore, Judge Bradley held there can
be under existing laws no such thing as a
common law jury trial before a Justice of
the peace in the District of Columbia.
Hence, he sustained the contentious of Mr.,
the proceedings against him before the ius
tee CT the peace.
It's Importance.
Judge Bradley's decision was awaited nv
the members of the bar with the greatest
opinion is that, unless reversed by the
Court of Appeals or by the United States
Supreme Court. the effect will be to do
away with all jury trials before Justices of
the peace here N
BY the recent act of Congress enlareing
me jurisdiction Of justices of the peace in
me me District OF Columbia. they have, with
the District Supreme Court, concurrent
jurisdiction in all cases where the amount
IN controversy is not less than 500 nor
more than $500 So, while a party NAV
where the amount in controversy ia s1Oo ~
over. hle the case in the District Supreme
Court. 1t is very doubtful if any cases,
Wnere the amount at issue is not less than
s2o or more than $780, will be filed here
before Justice of the peace. At least
many members of the bar interpret Judge
Bradley's decision as meaning that justices
OF the peace here are, because they can
give no common law jury trial. witbomt
any jurisdiction whatever where the
amount in controversy is $50 or more.