The morning times., 1897-02-18
THE POWERS OF JUSTICES
Judge COx's Decision Reversed
by the Court of Appeals.
THEY CAN HOLD JURY TRIALS
The Lower Tribunal Decided That
They Could Not, but the Appellate
Court Has Found 1t in ErrOr-A
Dissenting Opinion Delivered BY
Justice Alvey

The Court OF Appeals yesterday rem
| dered an opinion OF great Importance, re-
lating to the jurisdiction of justices of
the peace in the District Of Columbia In
cases involving more than $50
| Some time ago the supreme court OF
the District held that a Justices court
could not accord 20 persons the right OF
a common law jury trial, and Judge Cox,
in giving this decision based ii upon the
ground that a justice OF the peace could
not set aside the verdict of Jury, nor
| could he instruct the jury as to the compe-
| tency OF evidence submitted. This was in
the case Of Charles Hof against the Capt
tai Traction Company. Later on, when
the Brightwood Railroad brought a case
before Judge Bradley against Justice Lewis
1. ONeal the court held that there was
no appeal from the decision OF a Justice
of the peace who, being unable 10 accord
q Common law jury trial, therefore had
no Jurisdiction III cases involving more
than $50.
Both of these cases were appealed To
the Court of Appeals, and tie decision
of the appellate court, which is written
by Justice Morris, reverses Judge Cox, and
declares that trial by Jury before
j. Sfice of the peace Is q common law
jury trial within the meaning of the Con-
stitution, and that such magistrates there
fore have jurisdiction. The decision of
Judge Bradley, holding that there is no
).
taincd.
In this view Of the question Chief Justice
Alvey differs and he accordingly rendered
d dissenting opinion.
The majority opinion Of the court is one
of the longest ever rendered by the court
of appeals and reviews at great length
all the laws relating to common Law
juries and the jurisdiction of justices.
Justice Morris discusses the common law
jury in England and through the Colonial
period, and then comes to the act Of 1923,
which gave to the District OF Columbia
trial before justices OF the peace. The
opinion is in great measure based on
that act, in conjunction with the seventh
amendment of the Constitution which pro-
vides for every person right OF trial by
common law jury in all amounts over $50
Justice Morris says there is no open
question that the right of trial by jury
secured by the Constitution in all suits al
| common law where the value exceeds $50
means the right 10 trial 10y jury as known
to the common law at the UIme of the
aC 1tion of the Constitution, with pro
cerdings in accord with the forms of the
| common law.
| such is the apparently unanim Gus tenor
| of all the authorities on the subject. Nor
| DO we regard it as open to question that
| at common law the province Of imy is,
| limited 10 the determination of CcntIO-
| verted questions of TACT put in issue, and
| which are to be asceTtained by the Jury
| from such evidence as is admitted by
| presiding judge to be presented to them,
| and in accordance with such instructions
| as to the law which such court or judge
| may give to them"
The decision then details the meaning
| of the act of 1923, providing for justices
| courts. He says that Congress had in
| mind the seventh amendment when the
| act of 1898 was framed, and the inten-
| tion was TO provide constitutional com
| mon law jury for trials before justices OF
the peace, and that if the act did not
succeed in it's purpose it Is either because
! it is radically defective and insufficient
| In it's terms, or else it was not competent
| for Congress under the Constitution to
| provide a common law jury for the courts
| OF justices of the peace.
The court then discusses the suffieiency
| of the act of s23, and asserts that there
! is nothing in the act to warrant the deduC-
| ton that the justice of the peace may not
| exercise the functions of judge of a court
| of record and instruct the jury in the queS-
| tions Of law arising in the case or that he
| may not controlthe Introduction Of evidence
oreven set aside the verdict of the jury and
! grant q new trial. 1t is held that even ifthe
| act were silent on that subject the reason
| ableinferencc would be that il wasintended
| that such jury should act in accordance
| with the course of the common law. II Is
| plain, however, that it is for the justice to
control the evidence and necessarily to rule
| upon the introduction of the same. This is
main function of a judge or presiding
| officer In trial by jury asserts Justice
| Morris. land the fact that the stutute COM
! mits it to the jury to try the matter in dis
/ pute betweenthe parties instead of author
| izing them to try the issue joined between
the parties as is the usual expression in