The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-01-13
the RIGHT OF
JURY TRIAL
Is UnreasonabIy Restricted,
Deputy Sheriff Claims
BY PROVISION OF PUBLIC LAWS.
II Is tho Section Relating 10 Jury Trials in
Ejecimsnt Cases.
THERE WERE NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS.
u is Cllimsd Hh.n Present State Constitution Vas
Adopted On Other Hand il IS Claimed There
Is no Cnnfi'i With 0rglnC Law.

TWO NCfy interesting questions have
been brousht before the Appellate
Court by Deputy SHERIFF Franklin r..
Iiom in tae controversy he has on hand
With his landlord. Herbert h. Mathew
sen. One OF these questions was sub
niitted co the court the other day and
dealt with h tine when service OF u 3
trict Court writs must be made and
was he'd for advisement Today an
other question involving the constitu-
tionality or Section of Chapter 287 OF
the General Laws of Rhode Island was
submitted 10 the court on briefs.
The case i'm which the two questions
arise Is that of Herbert ID. Mathewson
Na Franklin Is. Ham ana IS an action
of trespass and ejectmcnt begun I'm the
Sixth District Court for possession OF
tenement let The section OF the gen
cral laws that it Is claimed conflict with
sections 2. H. and IL of article / of the
constitution of Rhode Island and also
with article VII in amendment of the
constitution Of the United States is as
follows: Every defendant in an action
for the possession of tenements let, or
claiming Jury trial shall III addition To
making the payments required i'm and
by section of this chapter give bond
Nr other moneys due or which may be-
come due pending the action under the
tenancy. etc
Deputy Sheriff Ham. through his
counsel. Arthur Cushing, claims that
this section interposes AN unreasonable
restriction on the right OF jury trial.
The question turns on what rights bad
the defendant when the constitution
was adopted. That there was no such
restriction on the right of jury trial
when our constitution was adopted H. !
1912 as the provision here objected To |
that while there was n bond required /
in justice courts il was no such bond |
as here required. one requiring surety |
for the payment OF all moneys due.
X. w. Burbank. counsel for Mr.. /
Mathewson. in his brief maintains that I
the section claimed to be unconstitu- /
tional does not conflict with section I
OF article OF the constitution of Rhode |
Island The declaration that every per-
son ought To obtain right and justice
freely and without purchase Is not de-
MED by the provision OF the statute i'm
question which principle is illustrated
IN various decisions OF our court. That
security for costs be given by the
plaintiffs is held To be constitutional
md not in violation OF section >. article
OF the constitution of this state. That
he statute is not in conflict with Sec
ion i2, article I of our constitution on
he provision OF the statute is neither
an export facto law. nor does IL impair
he obligation OF contracts. as IL is a
statute purely remedied. That the
statute does not conflict with section 10
article ] OF the constitution of Rhode
sland. inasmuch AZ the right of trial
~ jury is no way violated thereby
That article VII Of the amendments of
he constitution of the United States
Ippiies only TO the government OF the
jnited States and not TO legislation OF
state.