Opinion ID: 2376388
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Judiciary Jury Article

Text: We also hold that Article V, Section 10, of the Constitution extends the right to a jury to Credit Bureau in this case. Some decisions have mistakenly treated the Bill of Rights and the Judiciary Articles as identical in meaning, that is, as protecting the right of trial by jury only as it existed at common law or by statutes in effect at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Hickman v. Smith, 238 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.Civ. App.1951, writ ref'd). In Cockrill v. Cox, 65 Tex. 669 (1886), the court correctly wrote that the present Judiciary Article protecting the right to a jury was added by the Constitution of 1845 because the Bill of Rights Article contained in the Constitution of the Republic did not extend to causes in equity. Tex.Const. art. IV, § 16 (1845). In other words, the Judiciary Article was intended to broaden the right to a jury afforded by Article I, Section 15. Tolle v. Tolle, 101 Tex. 33, 104 S.W. 1049, 1050 (1907); Hatten v. City of Houston, 373 S.W.2d 525, 531-535 (Tex.Civ.App.1963, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Walsh v. Spencer, 275 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.Civ. App.1955, no writ). Subsequent constitutions extended the right to a jury to all cases of law or equity. Tex.Const. art. V, § 16 (1868); Tex.Const. art. IV, § 20 (1866); Tex.Const. art. IV, § 16 (1861); Tex.Const. art. IV, § 16 (1845). It was the present Constitution of 1876 which changed the words of the earlier constitutions from all cases of law or equity to its present form, trial of all causes. The term cause is defined in Black, Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951), as a suit, litigation, or action. Any question, civil or criminal, litigated or contested before a court of justice. The United States Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 112, 18 L.Ed. 281 (1866), stated that in any legal sense, action, suit and cause are convertible terms. The court then defined the terms to mean any legal process which a party institutes to obtain his demand or by which he seeks his right. This broad meaning of the word, cause, comports with the interpretation given by other courts and legal writers in the period when our present Constitution was drafted. See also, Fish v. Farwell, 160 Ill. 236, 43 N.E. 367 (1895); Gibson v. Sidney, 50 Neb. 12, 69 N.W. 314 (1896); Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Larwill, 83 Ohio St. 108, 93 N.E. 619 (1910); Abbott, Dictionary of Terms & Phrases used in American or English Jurisprudence 193 (1879); Bouviers, Law Dictionary 211 (1859); 1 C.J., Actions § 26(c) (1914); 1 Ruling Case Law, Actions § 3 (1914). Special circumstances justify our former holdings that not all adversary proceedings qualify as a cause under the Judiciary Article. These cases have been isolated upon a case-by-case determination. Harris, Jury Trial in Civil CasesA Problem in Constitutional Interpretation, 7 Sw. L.J. 1, 7-13 (1953); 7 Tex.L.Rev. 663 (1928). They include such proceedings as civil contempt proceedings, Ex parte Allison, 99 Tex. 455, 90 S.W. 870 (1906); Crow v. State, 24 Tex. 12 (1859); Johnson v. State, 267 S.W. 1057, 1062 (Tex.Civ.App.1925, writ ref'd); election contests, Hammond v. Ashe, 103 Tex. 503, 131 S.W. 539 (1910); habeas corpus proceedings for the custody of minor children, Burckhalter v. Conyer, 9 S.W.2d 1029 (Tex.Com.App.1928, jdgmt adopted); Pittman v. Byars, 112 S.W. 102 (Tex.Civ. App.1908, no writ); suit for removal of a sheriff, Davis v. State, 35 Tex. 118 (1872); appeals in administrative proceedings, State v. De Silva, 105 Tex. 95, 145 S.W. 330 (1912); Texas Liquor Control Board v. Jones, 112 S.W.2d 227 (Tex.Civ.App.1937, no writ), and others. In each of the above instances, there is some special reason that a jury has been held unsuitable, but no sound reason exists for the denial of a jury in this case. We hold that Credit Bureau was entitled to a trial by jury to determine whether it committed the violations of the injunction with which it was charged, and if so to determine the amount of civil penalties which should be assessed against it. We disapprove the holding of the court of civil appeals that the State has the burden to prove that Credit Bureau knowingly violated the injunction. Section 10.01 of article 5069 is the relevant statute, and it does not contain the word knowingly or any synonym of that word. The statute, in fact, gives us directions for interpreting the statute: It is the intent of the legislature that in construing Section (a) of this Article, the courts, to the extent possible, will be guided by Section (b) of Article 10.01 of this Chapter and the interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C., 45(a)(1)). Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5069, § 10.02(b) (1969). United States v. J. B. Williams Co., Inc., 498 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1974), is helpful in its quotation from the opinion of United States v. H. M. Prince Textiles, Inc., 262 F.Supp. 383, 388 (S.D.N.Y.1966): [L]ack of willfulness or intention is not a valid defense to an action by the government to recover civil penalties. All that the government need prove is that a cease and desist order has in fact been violated, which has been done in this case. (Citations ommitted) [Sic] The reason for this is obvious. A cease and desist order is designed to induce the defendant to rid himself of any business practices which have the capacity to violate the order. The main objective is to insure the protection of the public which must be protected whether the violations are intentional or not. See Standard Distributors v. F. T. C., 211 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir. 1954); Parke, Austin & Lipscomb, Inc. v. F. T. C., 142 F.2d 437 (2nd Cir. 1944). We affirm the judgment of the court of civil appeals which reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause to the trial court.