Wilmington journal., 1873-07-11
4 Judicial gT>urpatiOn Exposed by
Chief Justice Pearson.

At Spring Term, 1872, Halifax
Court, the Hon. w. a. Moore, presid-
ing, bill of indictment was sent to
the Grand Jury against Joseph Branch
and returned by th body mot
True Bill, which the Court REUSED to
receive, ordering the Grand jury to be
seated III the jury box, and proceeded
to examine in open court, before them,
the witnesses, and instructed them if
they believed the evidence they must
return 81 True BiU," and to their
shame, be it said, they servilely obey
ed this order. Motion to quash the
Indictment overruled-appeal prayed
and refused-and then by certiOrali
carried to the Supreme Court. In the
January reports we find this case re-
ported at length, with Chief Justice
Pearson's comments, which are emf
nently proper and timely. The Chief
| Justice says:
'The power of Judge to require a
grand jury to come in open Court and
have the witness for the State exam
ined is not only opposed to immemo-
rial usage, but is not sustained either
by principle or by authority. The
province of a grand jury is not to try
the party but to inquire whether he
ought to be put on trial and the pur-
pose is to save the citizen the trouble,
expense and the disgrace of being AZ
raigned and tried in public on Grim
inal charge unless there be sufficient
| cause for it. If the man is to be ex-
posed without inquiry as to the suffi-
cheney of the evidence, to the scandal
and disgrace of a trialin public, it may
as well be done on the information OF
| &I,o C{a4a o1i MT
is opposed by the principle of the COM
The only case cited to support the inno-
bury, State Trials 772, which ''ought
not to be made a precedent, for the
reason that it was in the time Oh
Charles II, 11S1, when the Duke OF
York with the countenance of the King
(his brother) had joined the Roman
Catholics and the attempts of the
Jesuits to make that ''the established
religion was stoutly opposed by The
people of whom the Grand Jury were
drawn; and who although compelled
to bear witness for the crown examined
in public, because "such was the
pleasure of the King" were ''stout
enough and had the manhood to re
fuse to find the bill and to indorse ig
nOranu&, for which, as the repor
says, there was such applause and lout
: cheering that nothing could be heart
and the judge retired.
This case was never drawn into
precedent in England. There is no
: the slightest reason to believe tina
) such practice was ever in force il
r North Carolina, and it must be re
jected as inconsistent with the genius
of republican government. The Chic
Justice concludes with this query
"Why examine the witnesses for tn
4 State in public, unless it be to expos
e the accused to scandal and disgrace O
4 to brow-heat the Grand Jury and influ
: ence their finding" 2"
: All will admit that the Grand Jur
+ lays it Oh mildly, for the enormity Q
v the outrage is without any parallel i
d the judicial history of North Care
e lina.-Piedmont Press.
A young Texas man, who was kel
s on jury duty forty-eight hours, con
II plains that he got seven letters frol
It his wife inquiring why he stayed awf
II so long, and that he had very affec
!, iuo intaryiaw wwtth his ,notbar-in-l In