The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-03-12
NEED Jury TRIAL
TOC0NDEMN LAND
Court OF Appeals Supports Front
Royal Landowners in Big
Suit.
UNITED STATES LOSES
Opinion Revcrses Verdict OF
Lynchburg Court and Orders
New Trail

Proceedings instituted in the asscr-
ton of tho right OF eminent domain for
the condemnation OF private property.
according to an opinion by Judge
Smith. handed down yesterday in the
United States Circuit Court OF Appeals
are equivalent to a suit at common
law. and the landholders cannot be
deprived of the right TO have their
cause tried by a Jury.
The question was the turning point
in the case of Paul Beatty. Alma Jack
son, Lucy e. Barbee and others against
the United States of America. arising
from the condemnation, for government
purposes. of valuable tracts Of land
held by them in Front Royal Magis-
terial District. Warren County, Va
The condemnation proceedings were
carried on In the United States Dis
trict Court at Lynchburg, which au-
thorized the appointment OF five dis
interested freeholders to ascertain what
was a compensa ton for the lands. The
report made by these was unsatisfac-
tory TO the landowners, who moved the
empaneling of Jury for this purpose.
The court. after hearing testimony. de-
MED the motion, entering an order on
August .. 1872, that the report OF five
freeholders be affirmed. An appeal was
taken TO the Circuit Court which yes
terday reversed the verdict of the Dis
trict Court at Iynchburg, ordering a
new trial before q jury.
Right of T'rinl by Jury.
In his analysis OF the case Judge
Smith holds tNet the whole matter
rests upon whether or not the appel
lants were entitled to have the ques-
ton of what damages should be paid
pulsory taking of their lands. through
the medium of n Jury.
The proceedings under considera-
ton were conducted by the United
States district attorney in conformity
with an act of Congress of August !.
1888, which provides that the prac-
tice in condemnation proceedings in
the Federal courts shall conform to
that followed in the courts OF the
State, In which the action is brought
BY statutory practice in Virginia,
trial OF the question OF damages in
condemnation proceedings is not re-
quired TO be by jury.
Notwithstanding these well-estab-
lishcd practices. according to Judge
Smith. the point at issue is the CON
stitutional right Of trial by jury in
such cases. If the Constitution guar
antees such q right II cannot be done
away with or changed by any statu-
Quotes Constitution.
To this point is quoted the Consti-
tuition OF the United States. which in
the seventh amendment, provides that
the right to a trial by jury shall be
preserved in suits at common law
where the value exceeds SEQ In the
case before the court, the value OF the
lands was estimated at more than
$4,000.
The fifth amendment TO the Consti-
tuition prohibits the taking OF private
property for public uses without just
compensation. These TWO amend
mcnts, in the opinion OF the Court of
the opinion OF Federal judge in an
other case TO the effect that 1.-The right
Of eminent domain always was a right
at common law" clearly indicate the
right OF the appellants TO the jury
trial, which was denied them by the
lower court
Judge Smith quotes in support OF
this position from Article NLVI of
Magma Charta, which declares that no
| freeman shall be disseizcd or Invested
OF his freehold or of his liberties or
free customs except by the judgment
Of his peers.
Rcverses Lower Court.
In reversing the verdict of the Dis
trict Court at I4yncnburs and re-
manding the case for retrial by jury,
the appellate court says:
II would seem a startling PROPOSE
ton In the first instance TO say that
although the Constitution OF the
United States forbids the United
! states laying a fine OF few dollars
OH defendant without trial by jury,
and although IT forbids the United
states combining him for an offensc
committed without the verdict OF a
jury, and although the Constitution
In n common law case prevents the
recovery by one Individual from an
other or by the United States from
any citizen OF the United States of
even a comparatively small amount of
money without the verdict of jury.
yet that in a proceeding for con
domination for public purposes prop
erty OF the value OF hundreds OF thous-
ands of dollars may be taken without
the verdict OF Jury"