State v. Cloran
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a complaint in the city court of Burlington, under § 13, ch. 94, of the Gen. Sts., for owning, keeping, and possessing intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell and furnish the same, contrary to the provisions of said chapter. The respondent pleaded not guilty, and demanded a trial by a jury of twelve men, under the provisions of the constitution of the state; but the court, Tyler, J., denied such trial; to which the respondent excepted.
Read the full summary
This was a complaint in the city court of Burlington, under § 13, ch. 94, of the Gen. Sts., for owning, keeping, and possessing intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell and furnish the same, contrary to the provisions of said chapter. The respondent pleaded not guilty, and demanded a trial by a jury of twelve men, under the provisions of the constitution of the state; but the court, Tyler, J., denied such trial; to which the respondent excepted. The respondent then demanded a trial by jury, under the provisions of § 36, ch. 94, of the Gen. Sts.; but the court ruled that he was not entitled to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J. I.
By the statute creating the city court, that court can have a jury only in civil causes. It had no power, therefore, to accord a jury, as was demanded by the respondent. To refuse such jury was not error, but was acting conformably to the statute. Acts 1872, No. 255, § 11.
*285II. That act gave jurisdiction and authority to that court to try, and render judgment in, the cause ; and the court proceeded accordingly, and rendered judgment against the respondent. To this no exception was taken. Consequently no question is before this court as to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Enosburg Grain Co. v. Wilder ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
- In re KennedySupreme Court of Vermont · 1883