The Nevada journal., 1852-02-07

nave oeen quashed, nave become 10
some extent the subject Of popular
comment, / deem it no more than a
duty to myself and the grand Jury
who found the indictment, to present
the following fair and simple statement
or report Of the facts attending the
quashing Of the last indictment.
On Wednesday the 4th inst. the
grand jury of the county found and
returned into court indictments against
Lundy, Morehead and Morse; the
first for killing Dibble in a duel, and
the others for aiding and abetting
therein. The law regulating criminal
proceedings requires that, "when an
Indictment is found, the names of the
Witnesses examined before the grand
jury shall be instituted at the foot of
the indictment, or endorsed thereon
before it 10 presented to the COURT
And section 278 Of the same act de-
clares that, 'the indictments shall be
set aside by the court, where the
names Of the scitnesses before the
grand jury, or whose depositions may
have been read before them, are not
inserted at the foot of the Indictment,
or endorsed thereon" This section
contemplates ss ! can see, no distinc-
ton between the manner Of endorsing
the names Of those who testify orally
and those whose dispositions are read
before the grand jury. Nor can any
section be found, that know OF,
where such distinction is made
The endorsement actually made on
the indictment before presentation to
the court ran in this wise:-" Witness
es eramiaed, or whose dispositions
were read in evidence which was
followed by list OF their names
The objection Of Lundy's counsel, as l
understand it, was that the names of
those who were examined were not
designated from the names of those
whose dcpositions were read, which
objection was sustained by the court.
But l here challenge the gentleman
who raised the objection, or the court
who sustained it, to find one particle
Of law requiring even by implication
such separation of names in the en-
dorsement. In fact the strict con-
struction generally used in interpret
ing criminal Statutes would, if any
thing require that they be endorsed
together. If it be said that the pro-
vision as to endorsing name, is for the
benefit Of the accused, and that he is
entitled to know who swore against, l
reply that it can make no possible diff
ference to him one way or the other,
whether the evidence against him has
been given to the grand jury orally or
in writing. He has just as much right
to know what the witnesses swore to,
or whether they affirmed. or were
sworn on the holy Evangelists, as to
know whether the testimony against
him was verbal or in writing. But
even if there 10 formal defect, in the
endorsement, if the court had taken
the trouble TO inspect sec. 247, of the
act already referred to, they would
have found that
"No indictment shall be deemed in.
sufficient, nor shall the trial, judgment
or other proceedings thereon be affec-
ted by reason Of any defect or imper-
fection in matters of form which shall
not tend to the prejudice Of the defen-l
dant." This section would, It seems,
be sufficient to cover q multitude of
defects, especially Of the character Of
this.
/ have written this communication
in order to set myself right before the
people who have selected me to take
care of all legal matters wherein they
are concerned. and because a. the
prosecuting officer Of the county, I am
held responsible for the miscarriage of
l al v>vSk1s~ nu~..c.,Ss>-. T. 49,