Beatty v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 60 —INDICTMENT—March 10. APPEAL PROM JEPPERSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The Able jury law, approved Api-il 21, 1890, is unconstitutional, because it severs Jefferson county from the balance of tlie State as to its jury system, and gives to that county a system the necessary result of which is to produce juries inferior in quality to those produced by the. general law of the State.
Read the full summary
Case 60 —INDICTMENT—March 10. APPEAL PROM JEPPERSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The Able jury law, approved Api-il 21, 1890, is unconstitutional, because it severs Jefferson county from the balance of tlie State as to its jury system, and gives to that county a system the necessary result of which is to produce juries inferior in quality to those produced by the. general law of the State. (Gen. Stats, chap. 62, art. 3, sec. 2; Idem, art. 4, secs. 1. 4; Sutton’s Heirs v. Louisville, 5 Dana, 30; Lexington v. McQuillan’s Heirs, 9 Dana, 516; Smith v. Warden, 80 Ky., 608; Kentucky Trust Co. v. Lewis, 82…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Holt
This appeal involves the constitutionality of the law of February 21, 1890, entitled “An act to secure a more1 uniform and equal distribution of jury service among the citizens of the county of Jefferson and the city of Louisville.”.
It is claimed, first, that it severs Jefferson county from the balance of the State as to the jury system, and necessarily gives to it a class of jurymen inferior to that provided by the general law, thus violating that equality in the law required by the Constitution ; and, second, that it violates the constitutional guaranty of the ancient mode of trial by jury.
N…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Collins v. HendersonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1874
3Cited by2 opinions
- Exall v. HollandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Mauget v. PlummerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899