Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Cattle Co. v. Mann, 130 U. S. 69.) On the trial of an equity case, a jury may be called into court in its discretion and issues be submitted to it. (Wilson v. Riddle, 123 U. S. 608. See also Hodges v. Easton, 106 U. S. 408; Ex parte Wood, 9 Wheat. 603; Killian v. Ebbinhaus, 110 U. S. 568.)

Waiver of jury.-Parties may by stipulation waive a jury and submit the case to the court. (United States v. One Hundred Barrels Distilled Spirits, "Henderson's Distilled Spirits," 14 Wall. 44; Ryan v. Riverside & O. Mills, 15 R. I. 436; Chicago R. R. Co. v. Hock, 118 Ill. 587; Pike v. Martindale, 91 Mo. 268; Dole v. Wooldredge, 142 Mass. 161) It may be waived by stipulation of the parties. (Bamberger v. Terry, 103 U. S. 40; Wayne v. Kennicott, 103 U. S. 554; Rev. Stats. sec. 649.) The right to a jury trial may be waived by express agreement in open court, and by implied consent. (Dunlop v. Zunts, "Moncure v. Zunts," 11 Wall. 416; Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275; Richmond v. Smith, 16 Wall. 429.) Such a waiver sufficiently appears if the record declars that the cause was called for trial by the court, "the jury having been waived in writing." (Fleitas v. Cockrem, 101 U. S. 301.) A party present by counsel who goes to trial without objection or exception, voluntarily waives a jury trial, but if not present by himself or counsel, it is error for the court to try the case. (Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275; Baylis v. Travelers Ins. Co., 113 U. S. 316; Morgan v. Gay, 19 Wall. 81.) But such error cannot be taken advantage of collaterally. (Maxwell v. Stewart, 21 Wall. 71; 22 Wall. 77) Trial by jury is a fundamental guaranty of the rights and liberties of the people; consequently, every reasonable presumption should be indulged against its waiver. (Hodges v. Easton, 106 U. S. 408.)

Right, when not to attach.-This section does not apply to a motion for summary relief (Banning v. Taylor, 21 Pa. St. 289), as that judgment may be entered against the surety on an appeal bond (Hiriart v. Ballou, 9 Peters, 156), or a judgment by default for failure to produce books and papers (U. S. v. Distillery, 8 Chic. L. N. 57), or for judgment on a forfeited recognizance (People v. Quigg. 56

N. Y. 83); nor does it apply to preliminary inquiries which do not involve a trial of the merits (Ex parte Martin, 2 Paine, 348), nor to cases where the facts are conceded (U. S. v. Authony, 11 Blatchf. 210), nor to a proceeding to annul the license (f a pilot (Low v. Commissioners, Charlt. R. M. 302), nor to the imposition of a fine for failure to comply with the inspection laws (Green v. Savannah, Charlt. R. M. 368), nor where there is default in proceedings under confiscation laws, in a seizure on land (Miller v. U. S. 11 Wall. 268); but in an information in rem, the claimant is entitled to a trial by jury. (U. S. v. Barrels, 1 Bond, 587; U. S. v. Distillery, 8 Chic. L. N. 57; U. S. v. Packages, Gilp. 235.) A trial by referees without the consent of the parties is not sanctioned (U. S. v. Rathbone, 2 Paine, 578); so a nonsuit cannot be ordered in any case without the consent of the plaintiff. (Etmore v. Grymes, 1 Peters, 469; D'Wolf v. Rabaud, 1 Peters, 476.) A statute appointing commissioners to determine titles, and making their award final, does not takeaway the right of trial by jury (Barker v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 559); but the State legislature cannot direct the Federal courts, in a trial at common law, to appoint commissioners on questions which should be submitted to a jury. (Green v. Bidd'e, 8 Wheat. 1; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Peters, 492; Rev. Stats. sec. 649.)

Re-examination of causes.-The second clause of this article is substantial and independent, and applies to cases coming into Federal courts from State courts, and protects the verdicts rendered therein. (Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274.) The only mode of review is on motion for a new trial. (Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Peters, 433; U. S. v. Wonson, 1 Gall. 20; Patrie v. Murray, 43 Barb. 323, 29 How. Pr. 312; Wetherbee v. Johnson, 14 Mass. 412.) Since this amendment Congress cannot confer authority to grant a new trial by a re-examination of the facts tried by a jury, except to redress errors of law. (Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Peters, 433; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Peters, 492.) An act of Congress, so far as it authorizes the removal of causes after verdict, is in violation of this amendment. (Benjamin v. Murray, 28 How. Ir. 193; Patrie v. Murray, 43 Barb. 323; 14 Mass. 412;

and see Spencer v. Lapsley, 20 How. 264; People v. Murray, 5 Park. C. C. 577.) No review of the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial can be had, under Rev. Stat. sec. 649, unless the record shows that a written stipulation waiving a jury was filed with the clerk. (Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275.)

§ 9. Bail-Fines—Punishments.-Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (U. S. Const. Amend. art. 8.)

Bail. This provision applies to national and not to State legislation. (Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters. 243; Pervear v. Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 480; James v. Commonwealth, 12 Serg. & R. 220; Barker v. People, 3 Cowen, 636.) The Supreme Court cannot on habeas corpus revise the sentence of an inferior court on the ground that the fine was excessive. (Ex parte Watkins, 7 Peters, 568.) The constitutional right to bail is not operative after trial and conviction. (Ex parte Schwartz, 2 Tex. Ct. App. 74.)

§ 10. Equal protection of the laws.— All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any per son within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Const. U. S. Amend. 14, sec. 1.)

Constitutional law; protection of property rights.-Depriving a person of his property without notice and without eximination of witnesses is in contravention of the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing pro

tection to property rights. (Sullivan v. Oneida City, 61 Ill. 212.) That no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, is a principle of natural justice. (Brown v. Morrison, 5 Ark. 217.) Permitting a plaintiff to file a bill in chancery as an amendment to his declaration at law, according to the settled course of judicial proceedings in the State, is not a violation of the provision of the United States Constitution, that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Holman v. Manning (N. H.) March 14, 1830.) See Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 92, where by the practice in that State amendments may be made at any stage of the proceedings, if justice requires. (Morse v. Whitcher, 64 N. H. 591; Metcalf v. Gilmore, 59 N. H. 417; Walker v. Walker, 63 N. H. 321, 326; Brooks v. Howison, 64 N. H. 382; Owen v. Weston, 63 N. H. 599; Tasker v. Lord, 64 N. H. 279.)

Equal protection of the laws.—This clause applies to all cases where the equal protection of the laws is denied to defendant. (Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313.) "Equal protection of the laws," as here used, means equal right to resort to courts for the redress of wrongs and enforcement of rights, and exemption from unequal burdens or exactions of any kind. (Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. Rep. 722; 8 Sawyer, 238; 18 Fed. Rep. 385.) Congress cannot provide for punishment of individuals conspiring to deprive others of equal protection of the laws; this clause is aimed at State legislation only (U. S. v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629); nor does it relate to territorial or municipal arrangements for portions of a State. (Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22.) A State statute discriminating between Chinese and other aliens is void, as denying them the equal protection of the laws. (Baker v. Portland, 5 Sawy. 565; Parrott's Case, Sawy. 349.) So, a statute forbidding employment of Chinese is void. (Parrott's Case, 6 Sawy. 319.) A city ordinance requiring prisoners' hair to be cut, being a more degrading punishment as to Chinese than to other aliens, discriminates as to the former, and is void. (Ah Kow v. Nunan, 5 Sawy. 552.) A law prohibiting aliens incapable of becoming citizens from fishing in State waters is discriminating and void. (Re Ah Chong,

6 Siwy. 451.) Statutes discriminating in the remedies under the law against non-residents are void. (Pearson v. Portland, 69 Me. 278.) Whenever the law operates alike upon all persons and property similarly situated, equal protection cannot be said to be denied. (Walston v. Nevins, 128 U. S. 578.) State legislation simply forbidding a defendant to challenge the validity of service upon him, and which does not restrain him from protecting his property and rights, is not forbidden by this amendment. (Kauffman v. Wooten, 138 U. S. 285.) A statute providing for a more severe punishment of ex-convicts for the same offenses than of those not heretofore convicted does not deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. (Re Boggs, 45 Fed. Rep. 475.) This constitutional provision applies to_corporations. (Snta Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 394.)

Due process of law; what is.-Due process of law simply requires that a person should be brought into court and have an opportunity to prove any fact for his protection. (People v. Essex County, 70 N. Y. 229; Ulman v. Baltimore, 72 Md. 57, 609.) It is such an exertion of the powers of government as the settled maxims of the law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for protection of individual rights as these maxims prescribe, and is identical with "due course of law," (Beyman v. Black, 47 Tex. 558; State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 513; Ex parte Ah Fook, 49 Cal. 402; Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509.) It means the regular course of administration of the law through courts of justice by timely and regular proceedings to judgment and execution, according to the existing forms of the law. (Dwight v. Williams, 4 McLean, 586; Murray v. Hoboken Land & Imp. Co., 18 How. 272; Rees v. Watertown, 19 Wall. 122; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Peters 658; Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 662; Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 48); State v. Becht, 23 Minn. 413; Parsons v. Russell, 11 Mich. 113, Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 146; Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N. Y. 202; Re Meador, 1 Abb. U. S. 331; Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 393; Hoke v. Henderson, 4 Dev. L. 15; Norman v. Heist, 5 Watts & S. 171; James v. Reynolds, 2 Tex. 1; Newcomb v. Smith, 1 Wis. 71; Rowan v.

« AnteriorContinuar »