Bill Text - HCR17 (2011)

Declaring that Copp v. Henniker and the opinions which subsequently relied upon Copp versus Henniker are void and of no force.


Revision: Jan. 28, 2011, midnight

HCR 17 – AS INTRODUCED

2011 SESSION

11-0397

09/04

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 17

A RESOLUTION declaring that Copp versus Henniker and the opinions which subsequently relied upon Copp versus Henniker are void and of no force.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution declares that Copp versus Henniker and the opinions which subsequently relied upon Copp versus Henniker are void and of no force.

11-0397

09/04

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

A RESOLUTION declaring that Copp versus Henniker and the opinions which subsequently relied upon Copp versus Henniker are void and of no force.

Whereas, the Constitution of New Hampshire, Article 20 1875 states, “In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more persons except in cases in which it has been heretofore otherwise used and practiced the parties have a right to a trial by jury and this method of procedure shall be held sacred, unless, in cases arising on the high seas and in cases relating to mariners’ wages, the legislature shall think it necessary hereafter to alter it;” and

Whereas, it was commonly understood that the citizens of New Hampshire were entitled to trial by jury in civil cases unless there was another practice at the time the Constitution was ratified until the opinion of the Judiciary known as Copp versus Henniker (55 N.H. 179); and

Whereas, the opinion of the Superior Court of Judicature of New Hampshire in Copp versus Henniker recognized that in East Kingston versus Towle (1868, 48 N.H. 57) that the citizens of the State of New Hampshire have a right to trial by jury unless there was another practice at the time the Constitution was ratified; and

Whereas, the opinion of the Superior Court of Judicature of New Hampshire in Copp versus Henniker found by precedence in Meade versus Walker (1863, 17 Wis. 189) affirmed in Eastman versus Clarke (1872, 53 N.H. 276) that the citizens of the State of New Hampshire only have a right to trial by jury if that was the case when the Constitution was ratified; and

Whereas, Meade versus Walker (1863, 17 Wis. 189) was adjudicated under the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin; and

Whereas, the citizens of the State of New Hampshire are subject only to laws pursuant to the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire and the Constitution for the United States of America; and

Whereas, the case Eastman versus Clarke (1872, 53 N.H. 276) dealt only with the fraction of profits or loss that must be shared for a person to qualify as partner and did not deal with the right to trial by jury in any manner; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That, the General Court of New Hampshire finds that the opinion of the Superior Court of Judicature of New Hampshire known as Copp versus Henniker is repugnant to the Constitution of New Hampshire; and

That, the opinions which subsequently rely upon Copp versus Henniker to deny the right to trial by jury in new types of civil cases are utterly void and of no force.

None