The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-07-28

TIE CHICKEN.

TIE CHICKEN.
Yesterday morning the colorod man Groon, y
rho has been depredatlng on tho hon roosn n
4 farmers In Prince George county, Mary u
and, for some time past, was brought out c
or q hearing before Justice Walter. MT. n
,telner, the complainant, testified that tho =
chickens stolen BY Green from him were val I
ned at about 20.
This defendant said he was not tho man,
and that he was rs innocent Of tho charge !
rs an unborn babe In Heaven. ,
The Justice, believing that delay wouia
not prejudice the cause, gave Groom until
Friday morning TO procure witnesses 70 prove
his Innocence, but In the meantime he was
sent to jail to luxurlate on hog and corn
bread, az digestive to the fowl" contents
Of his stomach.
A JURY VERDICT SET AsIpn-JuRoRs MUST Bs
TAxPAyHns.
few days ago II. r. Merryman brought
suit against the Biz Per Cent. Building As
sociation for the recovery Of ESQ, alleged 10
have been paid to the association for shares
In its stock. Tho plaintiff demanded . Jury
trial, and tho case was tried befors Justice
Walter on Wednesday last, when the verdict
was rendered In favor Of plaintiff.
Tho defence gave notice that exceptions
would DO taken TO the verdict, and on Mon
day Messrs. L. q. Hlns and ]. r. McCon-
nell, counsel for the association, appeared |
before Justice Walter and argued at length |
upon the lnvslldity Of the verdict, citing su- |
thorities, and showing that at least two
thirds Of the Jury were Incompetent, not be-
ing taxpayer, as the charter Of the District
requires.
In view Of these facts, the Justice yester-
In the matter Of the motion for new trial
In the case Of Maryman W. White, tried bc-
fore me by o Jury, the only question that has
raised any doubt In my mind about granting
the motion Isl Whether . justice Of the poaco
has the power 70 refuse to enter judgment
upon the verdict Of Jury for any cause.
don sns h.1s '1 couaiaas@ .nas Will no.
enter Judgment upon the verdict Of the Jury
In this case, because 1t was void for the fol-
lowing reasons, to wit; Tho law requires
that Jurors, sitting 10 magistrate's court,
shall have the same qualifications as those
impannelod to try Issues Of facts In the Su-
preme Court Of the District. Among other
| qualifications required Of Jurors 10 that they
shall be taxpayers. The law does not re-
cognizc any other class Of persons a. entitled
| to alt as Jurors, hence Jury must be COM
posed exclusively Of Taxpayers, and o YER
dict rendered BY panel Of non-tax-paycrs
must DO simply void, Of no more force or
effect In law than a verdict rendered by
women or children.
II is proven before me that majority of
the Jury impannelcd In the above entitled
cause are not Taxpayers, and therefore they
were incompetent to sit as Jurors, and the
verdict rendered by them Is void, and can
not enter Judgment upon 1t. | do not con.
slider 1t necessary to notice the question as
to n magistrate's general power to set aside
because that question Is not directly Involved
In this case.
| HAVE The PoLIcR THE RrGHT TO ARREST
WITHOUT WARRAsr.-The police force Of
tho city were q good deal exercised yester-
day in regard to au opinion given by Judge
Fisher before a Jury In the Criminal Court
on Monday. That our readers may under
stand the case, we give the following facts;
On Monday, q colored man named Jack
Williams alias James Bennett, o known
thief, was tried before the Criminal Court
for assaulting aud resisting police officer
in the discharge Of his duties as An officer.
The case was briefly this: Several weeks
since pair Of pants were stolen from Jcre-
, miah Grady. Subsequently Grady saw, or
thought he saw, his pants upon the person
OF Williams alias Burnett, and pointed him
out to the police officer, requesting the OH
Ger to arrest the supposed thief Upon this
information the policeman pursued Burnett
, into house, when he turned upon tho Officer
aud assaulted and beat him severely, but tn,
officer finally with assistance secured hi,
! prisoner.
During the TRIAL yesterday Judge Fisher
10 reported to hsve instructed tho Jury, "that
unless they were satisfied that Burnett stole
the pants, they could not convict him Of an
offence In resisting the policeman. Police
men whom they undertake TO arrest without
, warrant do on their own responsibility
II tho party arrested was guilty, well and
good. II not, the policeman acted at his
PERIL"
:, On the 18th day OF November, 1868, the
l court in bdne, all tho judges asserting, gave
= an opinion BY request for the guidance oil
officers in making arrests. The following /.
. the closing portion Of this opinion;
! Both private persons and oflcers may ar.
rest without warrant persons guilty OF felo
niles. Upon this subject Chief Justice Say.
: age, In the Third Wind, 1853, states the case
as follows; my understanding Of tho law Is,
, that II a felony has in fact been committed
by the person arrested, the arrest may bt
justified by any ono without warrant, whether
there Is time to obtain one or not. II an In.
nocent person 10 arrested upon suspicion b,
u private individual, such Individual 10 OK.
cused, II . felony In fact was committed AND
there was reasonable ground to suspect the
party arrested but II no felony was com,
mitted by any one and a private individual
arrest without warrant, such arrest 10 illegal
: though an officer would DO justified II he
acted upon Information which he had reason
/ to rely on
"Justico Drury, In ,Rohan vs.. Savior, 8
Gushing, 1856, says the public safety and the
due apprehension Of criminals charged with
heinous (felouious) offences imperiously re-
quire that such arrests should be made
without warrant by officers Of the law. As
to the right appertaiAing to private individ-
uals to arrest without Q warrant, II 10 q
much more restricted authority, aud 10 con-
lned to cases Of the sctuAl guilt Of the party
arrested, and the arrest can only be Justified
I - kt.t "a atakI
and other peace officers acting officially, the
law clothes them with greater authority,
and they are held to be justified II they act
In making the arrest on probable and rea.
sonable grounds for believing the party to be
guilty Of felony." ga
police officer may, therefore, Justify an ar,
out a warrant, although Il should afisrward
appear that no felony had been committed,
but a private individual cannot" Soc Sam.
. uel vs.. Payne, l Doug. R., $50; 2 Hale p.
c., SO, 81, 80. We think the true rule OF
law Ia laid down In the case OF Rohan vs..
Savior, and the ruling Of the Justice at the
Circuit Court must be sustained"
1t Is very evident that the above Instruc.
tions Of Judge Fisher to the Jury and the
+, | opinion Of the court IN bdnc are considerabl,
= at variance, to say the least. In fact they
appear to be In direct conflict. Immedatel,
= | upon the PRONUNCIATION Of the above opinion
i OF the court in bane, the members Of tn,
a Metropolitan police force were instructed tc
!, govern themselves In making arrests In &C
= cordance Herewith. 1t is evident that II tn,
Instructions, as given yesterday TO tho Jury
arc to prevail upon the trial OF causes simi
lar to the one In question, then the opinion
= OF the court IN bdne Is OF no practical value
and police ofIlccIs arc again Sat soa."
) Justice requires that when officers conform
: themselves TO the opinion Of tho court, al
given for their special guidance, they should
, be protected against thieves and rutilans,
otherwise tho community must suffer with
the police officers, for It is too much 10 expect
that officers will risk life and limb for the
protection OF the community only TO be ridi.
culed in court for presuming that they would
receive its protection when conforming to Ia
, opinion in the discharge OF duty. Certainly
rowdles and thieves have presumed quite far
enough upon the protection Of the court, for
few months past, In their assaults upon
, policemen.
II would seem quite time that the "tables
were turned" and that policemen should be
| protected from outlaws, II such IA not thu