This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1872. Excerpt: ... State v. Johnson. december the introduction of new and arbitrary methods of trial, which under a variety of plausible pretences may, in time, imperceptibly undermine this best preservative of English liberty." In conclusion of this question: If this right was not a pillar in the foundation of free government, the declarations in our Constitution, that "it shall remain inviolate" and our statute, that, "All issues of fact joined in any suit at law, in any court of record, shall be tried either by the court, by jury, or by arbitrators; First, the trial shall be by the court, where neither party shall demand a trial by jury; Second, a trial shall be by jury when either party shall demand such trial; Third, It shall be tried by arbitrators on the agreement of the parties to refer the matter in dispute to arbitrators;" Gould's Digest, section Q9, chapter 133, would determine our ruling. Xno one denies this being a suit at law, in a court of record; and there can be no question but the issue is purely one of fact. This law says in all such cases, the trial shall be by jury, where either party demands it. As no exceptions are made in this law, we are of opinion, a jury trial ought to have been awarded. The power of this court to exercise original jurisdiction in eases of quo warranto and niandamus, is a question not free from difficulty. The various Constitutions of the State, from that of 1836, to the present time, we regard as substantially the same upon this subject. In the earlier history of the State, the question seemed not to have attracted any marked attention and discussion, and this court assumed jurisdiction, and occasionally the same was exercised, up to the twelfth volume of the Reports, when, in the case of vizi's, ex parte, a most elaborate consid...