The Columbia Democrat. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1837-1850, 1839-04-27

QulVOCdl SVluenCO nau DePu ulhCOVeTSu anu
as not merely desire, but
boast, that the stream of justice had been,
or would be polluted at the very fountain
head and source, he could not, in the con-
scientlons discharge of his duty as one of
the counsel for the defendants, but take ad-
vantage of the manifold defects Of both
form and substance which had marked the
whole proceedings of the prosecution, from
the commencement to the present time. In
an hour of unwonted. or unsuspecting
frankness, the rattle had been sounded, and
it was not for the defendants to rush into
the thicket where, sell-avowed, the serpent
lay coiled, when they could choose their
own track. He would move therefore, that
the Indictment be quashed, for the follow
ing reasons :
The Commonwealth In the court of quar-
as. ter sessions of Dau-
Charles Pray, et al. Sphin co nty
Bill found January
sessions, 1899.
The court are respectfully asked TO sqnash
the above name bill of Indictment, for the
following reasons, TO wit:
l. The persons who acted as grand-iu-
rors and by whom the said bill was found,
at the January sessions, A. ID. 1899, had no
authority by law to act in that apacity, not
having been selected and returned accord
ing to the provisions of the several acts of
assembly, directing the mode of selecting
and returning jurors.
q The sheriff and commissioners had
no authority to select and return. as grand
jurors, the persons who acted as such at the
said January Sessions, A. ID. 1899, no pre-
cept having been issued by the court, to
them, for that purpose, without which the
whole proceedings were erroneous and ille-
gal.
3. The Sheriff and Commissioners have
not complied with the indispensable reqnisi-
tions OF the several acts of assembly, in
drawing and returning the persons who un-
derdertook to discharge the functions Of
grand Jurors at the said Sessions of January,
1899.
4. The persons who acted as grand ju-
rors, and found the bill of indictment above
mentioned, were incompetent in law to per-
form any such act, not having been sum
moned according to law, and under the au-
thorty Of the court; no writ of UeHire IA
cias, under the seal of the court Of Guar
Ter SeSSi0nS, having been issued 10 tile
Sheriff and Commissioners for that pur-
pose.
5. The several provisions of the acts of
assembly have not been complied with, eth
er i'll drawing, selecting, summoning, or
returning the persons who acted as grand
Jurors, and found the said bill of indictment;
consequently, all their acts are null and
void, and the defendants cannot be. called on
to answer, but the bill must be quashed, the
whole process having been defective, irreg-
ular, and illegal.
6. The bill of Indictment is in itself de-
fectve, in the requisites of sufficient and
substantial averments.
7. 1t is defective and insufficient in the
fact that it does not set forth the addition
of the several defendants, but mentions
merely their names; want of certdinty, at
utter variance with the well established and
long settled rules Of crimial pleading, and
in noncompliance with the explicit provis-
ions Of the Statute IF first Henry 5th,
which said statute is in full force in this COM
monwealth, and so declared to be by the
judges Of the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania, in their report of 1868, to the Iegis-
lature of the State.
G. w. BARTON,
HAMILTON ALRICKS, Counsei ,S,,
CHARLES G. RAWN, iof ue''S'
Harrisburg, April, IS, 1899.
After reading the foregoing reasons, MIR.
Barton remarked: That he would not, al
that time, offer any arguments in their sup
port. The defendants were entitled to the
commencement and conclusion, and Messrs.
Alrcks and Rawn, who were associated
with him in the defence, would proceed to
put the court in possession of the various
authorities, upon which the defendants re-
lied; and when the prosecution had replied
to their remarks, he (Mr. b. would have
the closing word, and enter into the argu
ment at length, should he deem it necessa-
ry.
Mr.. AIricks then proceeded in power
inl and conclusive address to the court, in
the course of which, he adduced many au.
thorllies, showing that no such body as a
grand jury had existed at the January ses-
sions; and that the persons by whom the
bill was found, had no power or right to act