14 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND.

and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without
any denial, and speedily without delay, according to Law of the Land.

Nothing in this article prevents a court from adopting rules requiring
the trial of cases within a reasonable .time. This article referred to in
upholding a rule of the circuit court for Howard county relative to the
stet docket. Laurel Canning Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 115 Md. 642.

This article referred to in holding that the warden of the Maryland
penitentiary might be made a defendant in an ejectment suit; the immunity
of the state from suit does not prevent an action against a state official
wrongfully withholding property for state uses. Weyler v. Gibson, 110 Md.

653.

Private rights are amply secured by this article and article 23. This
article referred to in discussing the liability of a street railway company
for the erection, by authority, of an elevated railway in the street. Garrett
v. Lake Roland R. R. Co., 79 Md. 290 (dissenting opinion).

The contention based upon this article that a judgment creditor may (in
the absence of statute) execute upon the land upon which railroad tracks
are laid, overruled. McColgan v. Baltimore Belt R. Co., 85 Md. 522.

See article 23 of the declaration of rights and notes to article 15, section
6. of the Md. constitution.

Art. 20. That the trial of facts, where they arise, is one of the
greatest securities of the lives, liberties and estate of the People.

Nothing in this article prevents a court from adopting rules requiring the
trial of cases within a reasonable time. This article referred to in uphold-
ing a rule of the circuit court for Howard county relative to the stet
docket. Laurel Canning Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 115 Md. 642.

The registry act of 1865, chapter 174, disfranchising those who had been
in the Confederate army and requiring a test oath, thought to be in plain
conflict with this article. Anderson v. Baker, 23 Md. 573 (dissenting opin-
ion).

See article 5 of the declaration of rights and article 4, section 8, and
article 15, section 6, of the Md. constitution.

Art, 21. That in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right

to be informed of the accusation against him; to have a copy of the

Indictment, or Charge in due time (if required) to prepare for his

defense; to be allowed counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have process for his witnesses; to examine the witnesses
for and against him on oath; and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury,

-without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty.

Jurors and jury trial.

The fact that two of the twenty-four jurors were members of a law and
order league, the object of which was to enforce the local option law, did
not disqualify them in a prosecution for a violation of said law; such
members should not serve, however, in cases in which the league has con-
trol of, or by its counsel actively participates in, the prosecution. The
fact that two of the state's witnesses were employees of the league did not
disqualify the two jurors who were members of the league. The two
jurors would have been disqualified, however, had they been members of an
association for the purpose of delaying or obstructing the enforcement of
the law. Guy v. State, 96 Md. 694.

The act of 1S78, chapter 415, section 10, conferring jurisdiction upon
justices of the peace to try and commit to the house of correction vagrant
and disorderly persons, is constitutional. Meaning and design of this arti-
cle. The crimes which this article provides for a jury trial of, are such
crimes as have by the regular course of the law and the established modes
of procedure as theretofore practised, been the subjects of jury trial. State