Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-05-27

tend, to erase his name and substi-
tute another in his place.
Mr.. Hay supposes this a mere mat
ter of form, for if full grand Jury
should not attend, the deficiency is to
be supplied from among the by-s,an-
ders. The learned counsel acknow-
Lodges that he mas not attended to this
branch of the law. IF 16 jurors at
tend, the marshal cannot add another
to the pannel. Apply this to sup
posed case, and perhaps case now
before the court. The marshal is in
formed few days before the sitting
OF the court, that juror cannot at
tend. He thereupon grasses his name
and substitutes another. Has the mar
shal power out of court which he
cannot exercise in court. Suppose
another case. Days and weeks have
elapsed since a juror was summoned
alter which the marshal receives an
excuse, and few hours before the
court meets, grasses his name and sub.
stitutes another. could men ion the
names of respectable gentlemen if it
were proper Here Maj. Scott inter-
ruPted MIR. Wickham by requesting
him to name the gentlemen to whom
he alluded, & saying that he was ready
to state the circumstances which had
occurred.l Mr.. Wickham proceeded.
l cannot submit to those interrupt
ons; there is respect due to the
court and the bar. T"And to nv
feelings" said Maj. Scott Suppose,
SAID Mr.. Wickham, gentleman
should write to the marshal that his
carriage was broken and he could not
attend this excuse might not be dec
med sufficient by tie court, and the
Juror might be fined. Is the marshal
to exercise the functions of the court.
and can he release him from the fine /?
| l will say one word more to relieve
the feelings of the respectable gentle
man who appears to have been hurt
at what has passed. am sensible
that he meant to comply with his du-
~ with the most sacred regard to i'm
Partially.
Mr.. Hay said that he should con.
tent himself with remarking that he
could see no good reason whv the
marshal, after he had discovered that
!. a juror could not attend, should not
be authorised to supply the dehcien-
cy by summoning another before the
commencement of the term.
Chief Justice to MIR. Randolph.
! Has this question ever come before
the state courts.
| Mr.. Randolph. Never. But there
never was a case in which there was
such call for strict adherence to
the rules of law. 1t has been more
than thirty years since / first acted as
Attorney for the Commonwealth. -.
: Since resigning that Office, have fire.
quently been engaged for defen-
dants IN criminal prosecutions. The
right OF challenge was never question
ed. Tho l had always supposed that
In cases of this kind the strict rigor
OF the law was to be enforced, yet the
necessity of making similar obiccti-
on had never been felt. II am to
assign reason why this question was
never before raised may say that
never before was there such a torrent
OF prejudice, and excited by means
which we shall hereafter endeavor to
develope.
| l have the highest confidence in the
virtuous officer who has returned the
present jury; but under the circum-
stances of this case it becomes neces-
sary to contend for the rules of which
we now avail ourselves; and in con.
sequence of the power vested in the
marshal and his liability to be influ-
enced by the government, great dam
ger would arise from relaxing them.
Chief Justice. l did not ask the
question with view to be informed
whether the objection may not now be
made, but to ascertain, if it ever had
been made in the state courts, how it
was determined. From the authori-
ties read by counsel, there can be no
doubt but the exception may now be
taken.
The law of Virginia authorises the
officer to summon twenty-four men,
but says nothing eff any more. He
therefore cannot summon twenty five.
IN he dpsires the fUentv-6ffb man 20