Lommen v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county. Defendant, at the proper time, filed with the clerk a demand for a -struck jury. At the time designated by the sheriff for striking the jury, plaintiff appeared and filed with him -written objections to the proceeding, on the ground that the act authorizing struck juries was unconstitutional. The sheriff, nevertheless, did strike a jury.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Hennepin county. Defendant, at the proper time, filed with the clerk a demand for a -struck jury. At the time designated by the sheriff for striking the jury, plaintiff appeared and filed with him -written objections to the proceeding, on the ground that the act authorizing struck juries was unconstitutional. The sheriff, nevertheless, did strike a jury. On the first day of the term, plaintiff gave notice of a motion to quash the struek-jury proceedings, based on the fact that no venire had been issued or made returnable for the first day of the term, and also…
1DissentCanty, J.
I cannot concur in the foregoing opinion. At the time of the adoption of our constitution, no man had a right in the territory of Minnesota to resort to the one-man method of having a jury selected for him, when he showed no shadow of cause for it, and when there were plenty of presumptively fair and competent jurors in court on the regular panel. No man ever had such a right in the territory. And, further, for more than 150 years prior to the adoption of our constitution, such one-man power in the sdec*217tion of juries had been almost universally discarded in all the American colonies, states,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Poucher v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Livingston v. Columbian InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1804
- Foot v. CroswellNew York Supreme Court · 1804
- Genet v. MitchellNew York Supreme Court · 1809