Act to encourage the direct Importation of Rum from the West-Indies, and such Wines as may lawfully be imported from the Places of their Growth, Product and Manufacture, into the Eastern Division of New Jersey,” (passed Dec. 2,1743), II Laws of the Royal Colony of New Jersey: 1703-1745 at 579 (providing for forfeiture of wine and rum imported without duty paid in “any Court of Record within this Colony”). Forfeiture actions under these laws, like those under the Navigation Acts, would have proceeded in the common-law courts. As the State concedes, such actions, if heard in the common-law courts, would have been tried to juries. D. While a colony, New Jersey enacted a series of forfeiture statutes to punish violations of fish and gaming statutes. See, e.g., “An Act for Preservi 1868) (<HOLDING>). Only one post-Revolution case cited by the
holding that prior distribution and possession convictions that were eight and ten years before the charged conduct occurred were not too remote holding that prior to 1776 convictions before mag istrates for petty criminal offenses and violations of police regulations were of frequent occurrence and were recognized as part of laws of england holding that convictions before magistrates for small criminal offenses were unknown at common law and therefore defendant had no right to jury trial holding that as to whether the defendants prior convictions were part of a single common scheme or plan so as to be related under ussg  4a12a2 defendant has the burden of establishing that those prior offenses were jointly planned or that the commission of one entailed the commission of the other holding that jury trial not required before imposition of penalty for selling intoxicating liquors contrary to city ordinance reasoning that prior to 1776 the legality of convictions before magistrates for petty offenses and for violations of police regulations without trial by jury was unquestioned