Miners' court

Last updated

A miners' court was a type of quasi-judicial court common in the American Old West that summoned a subset of the miners in a district when a dispute arose.

Contents

Background

It was made to retain order and decide punishments within mining communities. A presiding officer or judge was elected and a jury was selected. Other systems that were used included alcaldes and arbitration. In the event a decision was disputed, a mass meeting of the mining camp could be called to allow a dissatisfied party to plead his case and possibly get the decision reversed. [1] This system generally was replicated throughout mining towns, but within different states, different systems existed. The work of mining, and its environment and conditions, were so different in different places, that the laws and customs of the miners had to vary even in adjoining districts." [2]

Miners' Courts in Colorado

Early forms of government in Colorado included a mining code, which comprised nine resolutions serving as general guidelines for miners. As time went on, these resolutions proved insufficient, leading to the adoption of a new code. This new code included the appointment of a sheriff, who was granted the authority to serve notices and executions, summon parties and jurors, and enforce court decisions regarding property possession.

Previous laws regarding trials for disputed claims were repealed and replaced with a new law. Under this new law, an aggrieved person could file a complaint with any commissioned justice of the peace or, in their absence, with the president of the miners' association. The complaint needed to include the grounds of the grievance, the names of the parties involved, and a request for them to be summoned to appear and respond. The justice or president would then issue a summons for the opposing party to appear within three days. Failure to appear resulted in the complaint being accepted as true and execution issued. If the opposing party appeared and responded, a panel of nine people was summoned, from which each party struck off three names, leaving three to hear the evidence and try the case. If the losing party was dissatisfied with the decision, they could appeal to a jury of twelve men selected by the justice or president, whose decision would be final.

The losing party was liable for all court costs, with the justice or president issuing an execution for these costs, collectible from any of the party's property, except for tools, bedding, clothing, and provisions necessary for three months. Payment could also be made in the form of land or water rights, provided these were not essential for three months.

In 1860, this court system was legitimized when an act was approved to establish a miners' court and regulate its jurisdiction, setting regular times and places for holding court. The court's officers included a judge, a clerk, the sheriff of Arapahoe County and his deputies, and the officially admitted attorneys. The judge's duties were specified, and under certain conditions, the president of the district could preside in the judge's place.

The sheriff or his deputy would place the names of one hundred "good and suitable" men in a box, from which the judge or clerk would draw the names of eighteen men to be summoned for the next court term. The courts were primarily used to file complaints. Crimes committed within the district were to be punished as directed by a jury of twelve. Persons causing nuisances affecting the health of the inhabitants could be sued by the district, with damages not exceeding one hundred dollars and costs. Additionally, anyone obstructing a highway or leaving an open pit that endangered citizens was subject to penalties. [3]

Miners' Courts in California

California found itself in legal limbo until December 1849, when its population adopted a constitution without congressional approval. It wasn't until the summer of 1850, over two years after the discovery of gold, that the new state courts were organized and ready to hear cases. By then, the mining camps had grown accustomed to self-management.

In the early years of the gold rush, before formal court systems were established, miners settled disputes through miners' courts. In California, these courts essentially functioned as meetings that served judicial purposes. Although meetings as forums for dispute resolution are rarely mentioned in diaries and letters, newspaper articles and other reliable sources indicate they were very common. These meetings effectively acted as civil trials.

However, miners' meetings as trial courts had significant drawbacks. They required substantial amounts of time and energy. Given the claim system, land disputes were frequent and often led to court cases. The meetings exemplified direct democracy to the extreme, involving the entire community in every legal question. When addressing novel legal issues, the meetings acted like appellate courts, setting new legal precedents and effectively altering the local code.

Miners' courts also often discriminated heavily against Spanish speakers. [4]

Miners' Courts in Montana

Within Montana in 1864 miners’ courts were the only form of an organized justice system. Created to satisfy miners’ claim disputes, they proved inefficient when the cases were criminal. This led to the rise of Montana Vigilantes. [2] An especially inefficient court case is recounted in John X. Beidler's memoir in which the voting was done by walking up or down a hill. [5]

While the mining camps lacked private courts where individuals could pay for arbitration, they established a justice system through miners' courts. These courts rarely had permanent officers, although there were occasional justices of the peace. Most rulings were accepted without dispute, but there were options for recourse when disagreements arose.

For instance, in one case involving two partners, the losing partner, dissatisfied with the miners' court ruling, called a mass meeting of the camp to present his case, resulting in the decision being reversed. Additionally, if a larger group of miners was unhappy with general rulings about camp boundaries or individual claim disputes, they posted notices in various locations calling for a meeting to discuss dividing the territory. If the majority supported this action, the district would be set apart and named. [2]

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Court of Justice</span> Primary judicial organ of the United Nations

The International Court of Justice, or colloquially the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Court bail may be offered to secure the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may be charged with the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.

In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general jurisdiction over civil and criminal legal cases. A superior court is "superior" in relation to a court with limited jurisdiction, which is restricted to civil cases involving monetary amounts with a specific limit, or criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. A superior court may hear appeals from lower courts. For courts of general jurisdiction in civil law system, see ordinary court.

In law, a summary judgment, also referred to as judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition, is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sheriff court</span> Principal local civil and criminal court in Scotland

A sheriff court is the principal local civil and criminal court in Scotland, with exclusive jurisdiction over all civil cases with a monetary value up to £100,000, and with the jurisdiction to hear any criminal case except treason, murder, and rape, which are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of Justiciary. Though the sheriff courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court over armed robbery, drug trafficking, and sexual offences involving children, the vast majority of these cases are heard by the High Court. Each court serves a sheriff court district within one of the six sheriffdoms of Scotland. Each sheriff court is presided over by a sheriff, who is a legally qualified judge, and part of the judiciary of Scotland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial system of Finland</span> National court system of Finland

Under the Constitution of Finland, everyone is entitled to have their case heard by a court or an authority appropriately and without undue delay. This is achieved through the judicial system of Finland.

Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Israel</span> Part of the article of the series of government of Israel

The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Norway</span> Overview of Norwegian judiciary

The judiciary of Norway is hierarchical with the Supreme Court at the apex. The conciliation boards only hear certain types of civil cases. The district courts are deemed to be the first instance of the Courts of Justice. Jury (high) courts are the second instance, and the Supreme Court is the third instance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Austria</span> Overview of court system in Austria

The judiciary of Austria is the system of courts, prosecution and correction of the Republic of Austria as well as the branch of government responsible for upholding the rule of law and administering justice. The judiciary is independent of the other two branches of government and is committed to guaranteeing fair trials and equality before the law. It has broad and effective powers of judicial review.

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order for a United States district court to have pendent jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action, state and federal claims must arise from the same "common nucleus of operative fact" and the plaintiff must expect to try them all at once. This case was decided before the existence of the current supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983), commonly cited as Moses Cone or Cone Hospital, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning civil procedure, specifically the abstention doctrine, as it applies to enforcing an arbitration clause in a diversity case. By a 6–3 margin, the justices resolved a complicated construction dispute by ruling that a North Carolina hospital had to arbitrate a claim against the Alabama-based company it had hired to build a new wing, even though it meant that it could not consolidate it with ongoing litigation it had brought in state court against the contractor and architect.

The history of vigilante justice and the Montana Vigilantes began in 1863 in what was at the time a remote part of eastern Idaho Territory. Vigilante activities continued, although somewhat sporadically, through the Montana Territorial period until the territory became the state of Montana on November 8, 1889. Vigilantism arose because territorial law enforcement and the courts had very little power in the remote mining camps during the territorial period.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code, and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.

The Judiciary of California or the Judicial Branch of California is defined under the California Constitution as holding the judicial power of the state of California which is vested in the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts. The judiciary has a hierarchical structure with the California Supreme Court at the top, California Courts of Appeal as the primary appellate courts, and the California Superior Courts as the primary trial courts.

References

  1. ↑ Marshall, Thomas M. "The Miners' Laws of Colorado." American Historical Review 25.3 (1920): 426–39.
  2. 1 2 3 "American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West | Mises Institute". mises.org. July 30, 2014. Retrieved May 26, 2024.
  3. ↑ Marshall, Thomas Maitland (1920). "The Miners' Laws of Colorado". The American Historical Review. 25 (3): 426–439. doi:10.2307/1836880. ISSN   0002-8762.
  4. ↑ McDowell, A. G. (2022). We the miners: self-government in the California gold rush. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN   978-0-674-24811-3.
  5. ↑ Gressley, Gene M. (November 1, 1957). "Review: X. Beidler, Vigilante, by Helen Fitzgerald Sanders and William H. Bertsche, Jr". Pacific Historical Review. 26 (4): 409–410. doi:10.2307/3637142. ISSN   0030-8684.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.