The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-04-27
COSTS OF TRIALS BY JURY.
Justices of the Peace Cannot De-
mand Deposits to Cover Them


mand Deposits to Cover Them.
Chief Justice Bingham today rendered
an important decision in the case of John
Skinner. trustee, vs.. William Manders. q
proceeding in certioraTi in the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia The
opinion deals with the rights of Iitigants
to jury trials in the courts of justices of
the peace. The case was suit in re-
plevin instituted in the first instance be
fore l. G. Strider, Justice of the Peace
and thereafter removed by change of
venue to s. Herbert Giesy, Justice of the
Peace. When the time for trial was
reached Manders. through J. Walter
WheatIey, his counsel, moved the court
TO issue n venire and summon a jury for
the trial of the said cause
Justice of the Peace Giesy thereupon re
fused to summon a jury unless a deposit
Of S12 was made to cover the fees of jury
men, without in any manner indicating
whether the plaintiff or defendant should
make such deposit Counsel for Manders
asserted the right of his client 20 have
jury under the law and denied the right
of the justice of the peace to exact from
him any payment of or deposit for costs,
and. therefore, refused to make such de-
post
Counsel for the plaintiff alse refused to
make the deposit upon the ground that
the deposit must be made by the party TO
the cause who desired the jury.
Upon the refusal of both parties to make
the deposit the justice of the pe%ce direct
cd that the trial of the cause be pro-
ceeded with before himself without a jury
because Of The non-payment by either
party of the sum of So for jurors fees
Counsel for Manders protested against
the justice Of the peace taking jurisdic-
ton without the Intervention of a jury,
and upon the ground that such trial
would be Utility refused to participate
therein. and withdrew from the court,
WhereupOn the justice Of the peace pro-
ceeded to try the cause and render judg-
ment upon the evidence of the plaintiff
Manders thereupon sued out of the Su-
preme Court of the District of Columbia
a writ of certiorari to bring the said cause
before the said court and have the same
reviewed and the proceedings before the
justice of the peace quashed and annulled-
The question at issue came before Chief
Justice Bingham upon a motion to Quash
the writ on the part Of the plaintiff and
a motion for judgment on the part of the
defendant In prior case which was de-
cided by Chief Justice bingham a justice
Of the peace had demanded first Of the
defendant, and then of the plaintiff. a de-
post Of go, which sum had been deter
mined by a conference of justices Of the
peace as approximating the jurors. con-
stables, and Justices fees in a jury trial.
and upon the refusal of each in turn to
make such deposit had directed the cause
to proceed before himself without jury,
and upon certioraTi the. proceedings in the
case were quashed.
It was contended that The present case
was distinguished from slat because the
sum Of so was an arbitrary sum which
the justice had no right to exact, but as
juror at 81 per day, and as the deposit
demanded was for sum determined by
the law, IL was the right Of the justice to
require that the same be paid, and that
as the Supreme Court Of the United States
had decided that the justice Of the peace
jury was not a common law jury and.
therefore, not a constitutional right. but
mere mode of procedure similar to ar
bitTatiCn. IT was the duty OF the party
seeking such mode to make deposit to
cover the costs of TIE same.
Chief Justice Bingham, in delivering his
opinion. held that though the jury in
justice Of the peace court was not a com
mon law jury, Sucn as IS guaranteed by
the Constitution Of the United States vet
it was jury within the meaning of the
law TO which either party TO a cause be-
fore justice Of the peace had a right
TO resort II ne so desired. he said that
the statute giving to ltigants that method
OF trial Of such causes gave IL 70 them ID
SoIuteIy- without attaching any conditions
whatsoever to its exercise. and that hav-
ing done so. 1t was beyond the power of
justice Of the peace to render the right
- lditiOnal one by exacting q deposit, or in
any other manner
If such pOWer existed anywhere il rest
ed in the Supreme Court of the District
Of Columbia by virtue OF its authority to
make TTles governing the procedure be
fore justices Of the peace and as this
court had made no rule empowering a
justice TO demand q deposit for jurors
fees no such condition attached to the
right Of trial by jury before a justice Of
the peace in this Jurisdiction, and that
il was immaterial whether the condition
sought to be attached by the justice was
the deposit of a sum to pay fees fixed
and determined by the law or a mere az
bitrary sum without an exact legal pa
sis he WAS without authority to demand
any sum, and he therefore refused u
Quash the said writ. and gave judgmen,
quashing the proceedings in the cause be
fore the justice OF the peace. Manders
was represented by J. Walter Wheatley,
and Skinner by Edward L Giles, as coun-
sci.