Carter v. Camden Dist. Court
| Decision Date | 23 June 1887 |
| Parties | CARTER and others v. CAMDEN DISTRICT COURT. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari to district court, Camden county. On motion to dismiss writ.
R. S. Jenkins, for plaintiffs in certiorari. C. V. B, Joline, for defendants in certiorari.
An action was commenced in the Camden district court, by William K. Newton, state dairy commissioner, against Frank C. Carter, and Henry S. Carter, trading, etc., as Carter Bros., to recover of them the penalty, for alleged violation of the provisions of the act entitled, "An act to prevent deception in the sale of oleomargarine, butterine, or any imitation of dairy products, and to preserve the public health," approved March 22, 1886. Upon the return-day the defendants appeared and demanded trial by jury. This was refused, whereupon the defendants sued out this writ.
The writ will not lie. This ruling of the district court is not such judgment or determination as may be removed by certiorari. This objection was not made at the assignment, and inasmuch as the plaintiff below is a public officer, and has numerous similar cases pending, awaiting decision as to the right by defendants of trial by jury in such cases, the court, at request of counsel on both sides, will decide that question. It is admitted that the statute in question is in the nature of a police regulation. It was enacted to prevent cheating in the sale of articles made to imitate butter and cheese. The proceedings to enforce it are intended to be summary in their character. Before the adoption of the constitution of 1776, penalties for the violation of statutes, which provided for summary proceedings before a magistrate for their enforcement, were disposed of by the magistrate without a jury. The defendants in such cases were not entitled to trial by jury. Neither the act now in question, nor any other act, has given to either party in such case the right of trial by jury.
It is claimed by these defendants as a constitutional right. The language of the constitution of 1776 is peculiar. It does not give the right of trial by jury where it did not previously exist. It does not enlarge, but merely secures, the right, as it then existed, by the following clause, viz.: "The inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed, as a part of the law of this colony, without repeal, forever." Neither does the constitution of 1844 enlarge the right. The language of that instrument is "the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." The meaning of the language is that, where the right to a jury existed before the constitution, it could not be taken away by the legislature; but, where there was not such right previously, it was not extended to such cases.
The leading case on the subject, in this state, is found in Johnson v. Barclay, 16 N. J. Law, 6. In the opinion in that case Chief Justice Hornblower, said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. One 1990 Honda Accord, New Jersey Registration No. HRB20D, VIN No. 1HGCB7659LA063293 and Four Hundred and Twenty Dollars
...of a penalty for violation of a police regulation, neither party is entitled to a trial by jury"); Carter Bros. v. Camden Dist. Court, 49 N.J.L. 600, 602, 10 A. 108 (Sup.Ct.1887) (holding that right to trial by jury did not attach in suit to recover penalty for violation of 1886 "Act to pre......
-
Annett v. Salsberg, s. 225-227.
...by jury does not extend to actions for penalties for offenses of minor character unknown to the common law.’ See Carter v. Camden District Court, 49 N.J.L. 600, 10 A. 108, where the history of the right of trial by jury is traced by Mr. Justice Parker. The complaint in this case is couched ......
-
Peck v. Police Court Of Bor. Of Fort Lee
...summary without a jury. This legislative intent, not being in conflict with the Constitution, will be enforced. Carter Bros. v. Camden District Court, 49 N.J.L. 600, 10 A. 108; State v. Rodgers, 91 N.J.L. 212, 102 A. 433; State Board of Medical Examiners of New Jersey v. Buettel, supra; Ann......
-
State Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Buettel
...The history of the right in cases of this character is traced in an interesting opinion by Justice Parker in Carter Brothers v. Camden District Court, 49 N. J. Law, 600, 10 A. 108, in which case the defendant was held not to be entitled to a jury trial. Numerous cases appear in our reports ......