About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Clinton et al. v. Englebrecht U.S. 434 (1872)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0349 and id is 1 raw text is: CLINTON V. ENGLEBRECHT. Statement of the case. CLINTON ET AL. V. ENGLEBRECHT. 1. The effort of a defendant to secure, so far as he can, by peremptory chal- lenges and challenges for cause, a fair trial of his case, does not waive an inherent and fatal objection to the entire panel. 2. The fact that judges of the District and Supreme Courts of the Territories are appointed by the President, under acts of Congress, does not make the courts which they are authorized to hold courts of the United States. Such courts are but the legislative courts of the Territory, created in virtue of the clause which authorizes Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territories belonging to the United States. Accordingly, jurors summoned into them under the acts of Congress, applicable only to the courts of the United States, i. e , courts established under the article of the Constitution which re- lates to the Judicial power, are wrongly summoned, and a judgment on their verdict cannot, if properly objected to, be sustained. 3. The theory upon which the various governments for portions of the ter- ritory of the United States have been organized, has ever been that of leaving to the inhabitants all the powers of self-government consistent with the supremacy and supervision of National authority, and with certain fundamental principles established by Congress. 4. This view illustrated by reference to the various acts, from the earliest dates till 1864, organizing the Territories of the United States. 5. The Utah jury law of 1859 examined and considered in the light of this view and this history, and certain objections to it declared to be without foundation. ERoR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah. The principal question for consideration in this case was raised by the challenge of the defendants to the array of the jury in the Third District Court of the Territory of Utah. The suit was a civil action for the recovery of a penalty for the destruction of certain property of the plaintiffs by the defendants. The plaintiffs were retail liquor dealers in the city of Salt Lake, and had refused to take out a license as required by an ordinance of the city. The defendants, acting under the same ordinance, thereupon proceeded to the store of the plaintiffs and destroyed their liquors to the value, as alleged, of more than $22,000. The statute gave an action against any person who should wilfully and ma- liciously injure or destroy the goods of another for a sum [Sup. Ct.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most