10 D.C. 586 (D.C.D.C. 1879), 19,597, McIntosh v. Johnson

Docket NºAT LAW.— 19,597.
Citation10 D.C. 586
Party NameALBERT MCINTOSH, FOR THE USE OF BOWEN, & C., v. HORACE S. JOHNSON.
AttorneyRay & Newman , for plaintiff.
CourtSupreme Court of District of Columbia

Page 586

10 D.C. 586 (D.C.D.C. 1879)

ALBERT MCINTOSH, FOR THE USE OF BOWEN, & C.,

v.

HORACE S. JOHNSON.

AT LAW.— No. 19,597.

Supreme Court, District of Columbia.

September Term, 1879

A justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia cannot legally authorize a writ of certiorari on a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace upon the verdict of a jury in a civil suit before him.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This was a civil suit commenced before a justice of the peace in May, 1878. On the day to which the case was continued the parties appeared and the plaintiff demanded a jury trial; and after hearing the evidence on both sides the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $90.95, with costs. In his petition for a writ of certiorari the defendant sets up that he has a defense to the action upon the merits, and that he presented such defense, but the jury did not consider the same. Upon this petition a writ of certiorari was issued in the usual form by one of the justices of this court. In obedience to this writ the magistrate made his return showing the trial before him, the demand for a jury, the verdict for the plaintiff, and other proceedings.

On May 29, 1878, a motion was made in the court below to quash the writ, which was overruled, and the case is here upon the plaintiff's appeal from that order.

Ray & Newman , for plaintiff.

By the COURT:

The question presented by this record is whether a justice of the Supreme Court of the District can legally issue a writ of certiorari , after a judgment by a justice of the peace upon the verdict of a jury in a civil suit before him.

This question was decided in the negative by this court in the case of Fitzgerald v. Leisman , 10 D.C. 6.

There the writ had been issued, and on the return thereof a motion was made, as was done in the case to quash the writ, which motion was sustained by this court in general term, citing the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares that " no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

In that case an appeal had been refused by the justice of the peace; in the present case no appeal was asked, and the object of the writ was undoubtedly to procure a retrial of the case in this court.

This is not permissible, and the reasons are so fully stated in the case referred to that it is...

To continue reading

Request your trial