Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

judicial exposition in its interpretation. People ex rel. Williams v. Dayton, 55 N. Y. 367.

An act susceptible of valid or invalid construction, courts favor construction in favor of validity. Sun, etc., ('0. v. Mayor, 8 App. Div, 230.

Journal of constitutional convention may be consulted on ques. tion of constitutional construction. Goedel v. Palmer, 15 App. Diy. 86.

Wbere act may be corruptly administered, no reason for holding it unconstitutional. People ex rel. Nechamcus v. Warden, 144 N. Y, 529.

ARTICLE I. Persons not to be disfranchised.- Section 1. No member of this State shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers.

LAW OF THE LAND.- These words do not mean a statute passed by the Legislature for the purpose of working the wrong. The meaning

that no member of the State shall be disfranch d, or deprived of any right or privilege, unless the matter shall be adjudged against him upon trial had according to the course of the common law, It must be ascertained judicially that he has forfeited his privileges, or that some one else has a superior title to the property he possesses, before either of them can be taken from him. It cannot be done by mere legislation. Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 140; White v. White, 5 Barb. 474; People v. Toynbee, 20 id. 198.

Separate schools for colored children are permissible. People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438; S. C., 45 Am. Rep. 232.

Misdemeanor for one convicted of a felony to practice medicine. People v. Hawker, 152 N. Y. 234.

Legislature may abolish an office created by it. People ex rel. Mitchell v. Sturges, 156 X, Y, 580.

Act prohibiting more than eight hours' labor per day on city work held constitutional. People v. Warren, 77 Hun, 120.

Act prohibiting child under fourteen years as a dancer valid. People v. Ewer, 141 N. Y. 129.

Ordinance forbidding beating of drums valid. People v. Garabed, 20 Misc. 127.

Trial by jury.- $ 2. The trial by jury in all cases in which it has been heretofore used shall remain inviolate forever; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law.

TRIAL BY JURY.--The jury intended is a common-law jury of twelve men. Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 378. But not in eminent domain proceedings. Astor v. Mayor, 62 id. 590.

ARTICLE I - Continued. But a statute increasing the civil jurisdiction of justices' courts is Dot unconstitutional merely because it transfers a class of cases from courts of record, where juries are composed of twelve men, to justices' courts, where they consist of six. Dawson v. Horan, 51 Barb. 459; People ex rel. Metropolitan Board of Health, 6 Abb. Pr. W. S.) 105.

The right to a jury trial extends only to cases in which it had been exercised before the adoption of the original Constitution. Duffy v. People, 6 Hill, 75.

The word " beretofore," in this clause of the Constitution of 1846, means before 1846, and not simply before 1777. People v. Wynehaner, 13 N. Y. Sin.

A statute providing that the act of a person seen drinking liquor on the defendant's premises shall be presumptive evidence of the illezal sale, is unconstitutional. People v. Lyon, * Hun, 180). Habitual criminals act valid. People v. McCarthy, 45 How. Pr. 97.

Hhen (1 jury may be demanded.-on a criminal accusation for assault and battery; People v. Carroll, 3 Park. 22; for misdemeanors; People v. Johnson. 2 id. 22; under the prohibitory liquor law; Wyne. lamer v. People. 13 N. Y. 378; under law against bawdy-houses: Warren v. People, 3 Park. 514; in suits for penalties: Wood v. City of Brooklyn, 14 Barb. 425: for public intoxication; Hill y. People. 20 NY. 333: on a claim for breach of contract by a municipal corporation; Balilwin v. New York, 2 keyes, 367; on question of damages in action for specifie performance; Stevenson v. Buxton, 37 Barb. 13; in an action in nature of quo warranto; People v. Albany and Susquehanna R. Co., 57 N. Y. 161; in an action to abate a nuisance; Hudson v. Clary, 44 id. 553. See, also, Sands v. Kimbark, 7 id. 147; Metropolitan Board of Health v. Heister, 37 id. 661.

When a jury cannot be demanded.- On proceedings by a corpora. tion to expl a member; People ex rel. Thatcher v. X Y. Coml. Assn., 18 Abb. 271; on inquiry by board of excise whether an appli. cant is a fit person to license; People ex rel. Presmeyer v, Comrs. of Police, etc., of Brooklyn, 59 N. Y. 02; on question of fact arising on motions; Porter v. Parmly, 39 Supr. 219; on proceedings against disorderly persons; Duffy v. People, 6 Hill, 75; Plato v. People, 3 Park, 3xt); on proceedings on recognivances Gildersleeve v. People, 10 Barb. 35; in equity cases; Rathbun v. Rathhun, 3 How. Pr. 130; Coleman v. Dixon, 50 N Y. 592; on proceedings to enforce personal liaLility of shareholder in corporation; latter of Empire City Bank, 18 11. 199; to close business of insolvent corporation: Case of Mechanics Fire Ins. Co., 5 Abb. Pr. 444; to determine whether private prop erty is nteded for public uses; People ex rel. Herrick v. Smith, 21 N. Y.595; on assessments of damages for property taken for publie ugr; Livingston v, New York, 8 Wend. 85; Beekman v. Saratoga and Schenectady R. CO., 3 Pai. 45; claims by receivers of corporations against individuals; Sands v. Tillinghast, 24 How. Pr. 435; in actions involving examination of long accounts; Van Marter v. Hotchkiss, 1 Keyes, 583; on proceeding to determine claims to custody of children under apprenticeship; Matter of Donohue, 1 Abb. N. C. 1; in special proceedings such as those for the removal of tenants; Roberts v. Cone, 3 Alb. L. J. 151; in courts of special sessions; People v. Special Sessions, 74 N. Y. 406; in summary proceedings on recogni. pance; People v. Quigg, 59 id. 83; in summary proceedings for pupishment of public intoxication; People v. Burleigh, 1 N. Y. Cr. 522.

!

ARTICLE I – Continued. A jury trial is not guaranteed by the constitutional provision for “ due process of law." Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 378.

A corporation is entitled to a jury wherever an individual is. People ex rel. Baldwin v. Haws, 37 Barb. 440.

A trial by twelve jurors cannot legally be waived by the prisoner in a criminal case. People v. Cancemi, 18 N. Y. 128.

In civil cases a jury may be waived; Embury v. Connor, 3 N. Y. 511; it is waived by taking part in an assessment of damages for land taken for public improvement; People v. Murray, 5 Hill, 468; by receiving the damages awarded; Heyward y Mayor of N. Y.,8 Barb. 486; 7 N. Y. 486; by consenting to a reference; Lee v. Tillotson, 24 Wend. 337. See People v. Quigs, 59 V. Y. 83.

The legislature may constitutionally change the law as to the mode of procuring and innpaneling a jury; Stokes v. People, 53 N. Y. 164; for example, as to the territory from which they may be summoned; Gardiner v. People, 6 Park. 155; as to challenges to the people; Walter v. People, 32 N. Y. 147.

Courts-martial are recognized by the Constitution; People ex rel. v. Daniell, 50 N. Y. 274; and their fines may be enforced by legislative provision; People v. Daniell, Id.

Act authorizing foreclosure of mechanic's lien without a jury valid. Sehillinger Cement Co. v. Arnott, 152 N. Y. 584.

Act providing for special jury in certain counties valid. People v. Dunn, 157 N. Y. 528.

Freedom of worship; religious liberty.- $ 3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State to all mankind ; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.

This provision does not shield a witness from cross-examination as to his religious belief. Stanbro v. Hopkins, 28 Barb. 205.

A law agaiust theatrical representations on Sunday is valid. Lindenmuller v. People, 33 Barb. 518; Neuendorff v. Duryea, 69 N. Y. 557; S. C., 25 Am. Rep. 235.

Habeas corpus.- § 4. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require its suspension.

ARTICLE I- Continued. Excessive bail and fines.-8 5. Excessive ba:l shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor shall cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted, nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained.

The act of 1888, chap. 489, prescribing the use of electricity as the means of executing the death penalty, is constitutional. People ex rel. Kemmler v. Durston, 27 State Rep. 96.

Although there is a general maximum, Legislature may change or increase the punishment as to particular localities. Matter of Bayard, 25 Hun, 546.

The provision as to excessive bail applies only to criminal proceedings. People v. Tweed, 13 Abb. (N, S.) 148.

Disqualification for office is not an unconstitutional punishment for crime. Barker v. People, 20 Johns. 427.

Legislature may change manner of inflicting death penalty. People ex rel. Kemmler v. Durston, 119 N. Y. 569.

Grand jury — Bill of rights.- § 6. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of militia when in actual service, and the land and naval forces in time of war, or which this State may keep with the consent of Congress in time of peace, and in cases of petit larceny, under the regulation of the Legislature), unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, and in any trial in any court whatever the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel as in civil actions. No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense ; nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. See People v. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427: 1 Am. St. Rep. 851. INDICTMENT.- A law allowing the indictment and trial of a burglar in any county into which he carries the property is valid. Mack v. People, & N. Y. 235; same principle, People v. Dowling, 84 id. 478.

[graphic]

ARTICLE I- Continued. Indictment by a grand jury de facto under an invalid statute is good. People v. Petrea, 92 N. Y. 128.

Provisions of Code Criminal Procedure relative to amending defective indictments are not violative of this section. People v. Johnson, 104 N. Y. 213.

COUNSEL – This provision entitles the accused to counsel on trials by courts-martial. People ex rel. Garling v. Van Allen, 55 N. Y. 31. Prisoner has a right to interview with counsel. People v. Riseley, 13 Abb. N. C. 186.

Policeman on trial before police board has no right to counsel. People v. Police Comrs., 31 Hun, 209.

TWICE IN JEOPARDY. - “ Former jeopardy" does not protect against new trial. People v. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 413. A prisoner may be tried on a second indictment after a nol, pros. or supersedeas of the first, to which a plea to the jurisdiction only had been overruled. Gardiner v. People, 6 Park, 155, 190.

A new trial cannot be granted where the prisoner has been acquitted of a felony. People v. Comstock, 8 Wend. 549.

A writ of error at the suit of the people will not lie after judgment for the defendant in a criminal case. People v. Corning, 2 N. Y. 9.

A prisoner, sentenced upon a regular trial and conviction, cannot be re-tried. Shepherd v. People, 25 N. Y. 406; but the judgment may be corrected under the act of 1863. Hussy v. People, 47 Barb. 503.

Where a conviction is reversed at the suit of the prisoner, a new trial may be ordered. People v. Ruloff, 5 Park. 77.

Where a prisoner has been put on trial, a juror cannot be withdrawn without his consent. People v. Barrett, 2 Cai. 304; Grant v. People, 4 Park. 527; Klock v. People, 2 id. 676.

In case of disagreement the jury may be discharged by the court, and the prisoner may be re-tried; People v. Goodwin, 18 Johns. 1875 so where, being unable to agree, they separate without authority, and are afterward discharged. People v. Reagle, 60 Barb. 527.

In cases of misdemeanor the court of sessions may discharge the jury, without consent of the prisoner, and he may be tried again. People v. Denton, 2 Johns. Cas. 275.

Act imposing a condition on commutation of sentence is valid. People ex rel. Willis v. Sage, 11 App. Div. 4.

An arrest of judgment, after conviction for felony, is not a bar to a second indictment. People v. Casborns, 13 Johns. 351.

A prisoner is not put in jeopardy where the evidence fails to estab. lish the offense charged. Canter v. People, 1 Abb. Dec. 305.

Conviction for assault and battery no bar to indictment for murder, where the person assaulted subsequently dies of the blows. Burns v. People, 1 Park. 182.

Where one is convicted of murder, and the law is subsequently repealed without reservation, and a new law enacted, he cannot be tried again, nor can he be executed under a re-enactment of the old law. Hartung v. People, 26 N. Y. 167. Habitual criminals act valid. People v. McCarthy, 45 How. Pr. 97.

TESTIFYING FOR HIMSELF.- An act requiring parties to make discovery on oath concerning an indictable offense, but forbidding the answers from being used in evidence against them, is unconstitutional; Perrine v. Striker, 7 Pai. 598; nor is a person protected from testifying in a criminal case againsi another, on the ground that his testimony may tend to implicate him in a crime, provided he is pro

« AnteriorContinuar »