New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-11-30
THE .JUMEL CASE.

STRIKING JURY-PRELIBIINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Considerable comment was excited III legal
circles yesterday by the enterprise OF The TRIBUNE In
publishing, exclusively, the names OF the 4S men nom
whom is be obtained the special or struck jury
for tho second trial Of the celebrated Jumel estate
Such publication, with the knowledge Of the fact that
the Jury were to struck" p. m before United
States Circuit Court Clerk L. G. White, drew, yes
terday 10 his Office the United States build
ing in Chambers-st.. number OF lawyers and specta-
tors At the appointed hour Mr.. Chase the defendant
appeared with his counsel, Messrs. OCOnOr aud Carter
Mr. Bowen the plaintiff. represented by ex-Attor
neyGeneral Chated, Chauncey schaier, and ex-Surro
gate Gideon ]. Tucker.
When All we're ready to proceed Mr.. White said Mr..
OConor the law requires tho defendant to STRIKE
Mr.. O'Couor-Then erase the name of snas Davis,
-four merchant, OF No. 192 Cherry-st.
Mr. Whte-l do not know that you are aware OF IT, but
representatives OF the press are present; do you desire
them to 10 excluded
that they out OF the room. The publication Of
those ls names was great improprety.
Mr.. White then very conrteOusy asked Oil persons not
directly Interested In the matter 20 rellre.
The "stuhng" occupied about an hour; and Mr..
until Monday the OF those selected rejected
jurors from the panel OF A..
CARD FROM ONE OF THE COUNSEL.
10 he EditOr OF The tribune.
SIR: Statements concerning this case ap-
pear from time to time, in the public prints 1t may
general interest, which tend to mislead, and which,
they do not affect the merits cannot be subjects OF in
quiry on the trial. The defendant moved for special
jury and the Court, after hearing affidavit and
argument Of counsel for the plaintiff in opposition
granted the motion. The press has been misled in
stating that the special jury thus ordered understood
10 be the first impaneled In this country" 1t
woud be strange, indeed, II tbs were The utility OF
special or struck ures is apparent TO all who under
stand the principle which they allowed, and
fair statement OF that principle will be conceded by
every unprcjudced person. There IL no lack OF pre-
cedents. In the early English practice 1t was
tho usage 10 order all OF importance
to be tried at bar before the whole Court.
special Jury an inyarabe incident OF such trial at
bar. When important became too numerous to be
tried at bar 1t doubted whether special Jury could
be ordered at the sngeJudge Court commonly called
nisi prs the assizcs. Statutes therefore passed
this doubt and to place tho special jury sys
ten on a permanent basis With slight variations OF no
moment except in reference 10 expenses, 1t remains
upon that footing England until the present day. On
consontng defray the extraexpense either party
have a special jury, as matter OF strict right. The
Newly Statutes from the earliest period, contained
full and precise directions for special lures. They may
be found IN the last revision r. g. ZIG, Fifth Edition.
The only substantial difference between the New York
and English statutory systems that In our Courts
t0r IT, ana the court may grant or refuse H. according
b lis view O the Circumstances. The State law In this
respect IN the United STATES Courts The special
Jury is formed IN the following An officer OF
the Court selects IS persons whom he deems most In
different between the parties ana best qualified try
the case" TIE parties alternately strike out until
each has stricken out II and the jurors 10 try the
are by ballot from the remaining a. The advan-
lagos apparent. Fitness and capacity attained
respect To the whole as The presence Of any biased
uTeudiccd person the Jury almost only
prevented by the absolute right OF each party reject
peTemptorily Onefourth OF the whole panel All the de-
fects OF common Jures, which any human pre-
vision could correct have been obviaed by this sysem
1t was established Ia the very Infancy OF jurisprudence
apprOyedin every down 10 the present
Perhaps special juries not often asked for In this
country but they are well known Ia the profession.
MANY trials have been had la City Hall before
special turtles. The noted Staten Island Of Wlnde
Executor, agt. 81. Andrews Church. involving, pecu-
nj Iily only $3.50 and interest tiied nuo times In
rfcctuany before common juries; hut tenth trial by
special Jury, before CbefJ ustice Eugges. terminated
tho yCXatOn Jho quo warTaovo against A2aTlGh Z.