The Placer herald., 1856-02-02
Rear River Correspondence.
BEAR RIVER, Jan. 3Oth,


BEAR RIVER, Jan. 3Oth, 1856
A.. r5;tor.-Thc Herald seldom reaches
- somnwhat distant camp as the main road is
1;t,rt from us several miles, consequently twas
not until about ten days ago that, we became
n,r,rn of the determined stand taken by an ambi-
tious few at Iowa Hill to procure division of
tG u';" county 1t is true that we have heard fire.
.n ,'ort comnaints during the last two years, of
lin areot trouble and expense necessarily incurred
Wv Wv ;,rors and witnesses whose attendance was
rssoI,ired by the Courts at Auburn and an express
sion of opinion that the county was too large and
should be divided. But as we had heard the same
a,,I,ints quite as frequently made in the older
Stntrs and in counties scarce dozen miles square
,a nnoscd they were but ebulatons of discon-
tont which would soon cease We had occasion
ast week to visit Iowa Hill and there for the first
timc learned how anXiously division is hoped
for by an interesting band OF aspiring SPIRITS who
hnvo already singled out the eminent men Chem
solyosN who are to fill the high positions in the
nnw county The agtators of a division scarce
form a Corporal's guard as compared with the
masses who are sternly opposed to the measure.
The thing is simply ridiculous. a pity that our
county only third or fourth IN political lmpor-
toncn in the State and with an influence which is
now felt in all departments, should not be dis
mombered and all but obliteratcd for the purpose
nf creating offices to be filled by set of senseless
drones the height of whose ambition is to provide
work and bait upon public fodder. The division.
/ ;Cta
conf since Senator Hawthorne introduced his bill
to fund the debt Of the county. They contend that
| his hill removes the great obstacle which hther
to stood in the way of an immediate division, viz
the county debt. They say that this bill post
nones the payment of the present debt for term
Of vears-gives the proposed new county an op-
portunity of starting on cash basis, and that
when the time comes for payment OF their portion
of the debt they are willing to take the chances.
So far as / can learn this section OF the county
from the North Fork to Bear River and from
Christian Valley to Dutch Flat, are opposed to
both the division and the funding OF the county
debt. 1oulS, oi'0n'
We rive below the Union S report of the ruling
of the Supreme Court in the case OF the People
rs. James Frecland, tried at the July term of the
District Court The position taken and the abilt-
tv shown in maintaining them, by the Supreme
Tribunal, in this cause, win meet with the ap-
nlause of the people of this county, and go far
towards establishing confidence in our judicial
bodies Certainly, for the peace and well being
Of society. nothing is more needed in California,
and when courts act up to intelligent justice, mob
law and its advocates will disappear. 1t appears
that term Of the District Court is necessary, IN
} order to fix the time for execution OF sentence,
the order being to the court and not to the Juage.
Supreme Court-January Term.
The People vs. James Freeiand-The detcn-
T dant was indicted and convicted for the crime OF
murder.
Tho first Ground of error assigned is, that the
l Indictment does not charge any offence to have
: been committed, in this-hat the deceased IS
Q described as zone Greek George ana IL Is not
+ charged that this is the name OF person OF a
name by which the deceased was commonly known
J, The general rtle in framing indictments, is to
{ t,, pf thn If il be KNOWN
If if not The name by which such person is usually
q designated or distinguishcd or in case he Is nos
known by any name, to allegc the fact III the IN
= dictmcnt. Ii has never been held that 1t was ne
cc,sary to alege that the deceased was a sentient
e being. and for aueht we know, "Greek George
4 nav be the name of man with as much proprety
49, as any other name appcllation used to designate
" persons; both words may he used as patronymcS,
y or "Christan' names. Its unncce SSary, however
to enter into any pathological examination OF tins
a matter. as the evidence abundanty shows That the
49, deceased was known by the name by which he Is
, described in the Indictment and the instructions
oi of the Court were correct upon this point
al The second ground Of error assigned Is, the re-
pr flsal of the Court to set aside the indictment be
Il cause improper persons had been allowed to ac
" as grand Jurors. &c. 1t viii be borne in mind tha
" this indictment was found in the Court OF Sessions
II, and transferred to the District Court for trial
le The 10th section of the Criminal Code Or. l.. 43S
us provides that "when the defendant has not beef
~. held to answer before the indictment, be ma,
move to set it aside any ground which woul'
eS have been good ground for challenge either t.
rh the pannel or any individual grand juror IN
$50 minutes of the Court of Sessions, on which tn
II motion is predicated, show that the prisoner wa
Il" held to answer in that Court prior to the findin
Of the Indictment; 50 that the motion having bee
Is once passed upon by competent tribunal 1T coul
of not be reviewed by the District Court. The SEE
l ton was intended to cover two classes of cases
- First, Where the person was arrested and bel
ne to answer before the Indictment. the exception
IN must be taken in the Court Of Sessions. Sccont
Of The exceptions must be taken after the party ha
he been arraigncd for trial. The objection to tn
! Juror not well taken 1t is not necessary thu
pG the status of juror, or the competency of Wi
U. ness, should be established by the best evidcnc
ne, as is usual in substanang particular facts in II
All course of legal adjudication The answer of II
l juror must be taken as pri,na tacia true ar
ne establishes his qualification subject to be cOntr
m verted Or attacked by evidence aiiunde.
he The liability of criminal prosecution, if II
ed juror falsely will be found sufficient saf
49, guard upon the purity of the jury box, withol
'S resorting to a rule which would enable natural
lrs ed citizens to escape from jury duty, and avo
the responsibility which society has enioined upC
an every citizen by refusing or neglectins to brn
-, his letters of naturalization with him to the Cou
-" House. The next error ASST gned, is that the nan
90 of one of the witnesses who sworn befo
ter the Grand Jury. was not endorsed upon the lndc
ne. ment required by law The error complaine
Co. of comes too late: The 2Sth section of the Al
before cited provides, that 'if the motion to 81
, aside the indictment be not made, the dcfendal
he shall afterward be precludcd from taking the o
a iections mentioned in the last two sections"
~, which this is one.
.of IN TACT, 1t may well be doubted whether any G
TOT mas lhtervened and whether this Court won
yy beJustlfed in setting aside verdict upon so MN
'ty sy preteXt, The witness who was examined b
ate fore the Grand Jury was named T. D. Johnston
and by some clerical mistake his name was endor
ed upon the indictment as G. D.. Johnston.