, 1874-12-13
LIBEL.
Mr.. Storey's Case Comes Up
in the Criminal Court,
Mcssrs. Reed and Assay Discuss tho
Soundness Of the Indictment.
The Court Decides the 0bjec-
tions to the Grand Jury
Invalid.
But Hints that a Man Should
Not Serve Continually
Thereon.
ILL., ASay Cnen moves TO auaSh
the Indictment.
1t Does Rot Allcge that The "Times"
Circn}atcs in Cook County.
The Present Grand Jury Returns
Two More Indictments.
One Is for Attacks on Sam Ashton:
the Other on Tom Lonergan.
The Matter Comes Up Again
Oh Monday.
1t Does Rot Allcge that the "Times"
Circn}atcs in Cook County.
Tbs Present Grand Jury Returna
Two More Indictments.

ARGUMENT ON THE DEMURRER.

THAOWCIHI ON ! E1E UEWUfRcH.
THE STATES ATTORNEY SUSTAINED.
The arguments On the demurrer of the States
Attorney to the pleas in abatement fled by Mr..
Aeny, counsel for Wilbur F. Storey, in the Fair
bank libel case wero made before Judge Tree.
=! Aittng in the Criminal Court yesterday morning.
The discussion Was to have commenced At 10
o'clock. but, A1r. Assay being engaged in the Cir
cult Court. did not make nis appearance until q
quarter after II, when the Court WAS about de-
ferring tho matter until Monday. The counsel
present were States Attorney Reed, ur. Sidney
Smith. and Judge Trumbuu, who represent Air.
Fairbanx.
Nh. REED
opened the argument, saying that Ut the lns,
torn OF the Court the Grand Jury presented an
Indictment against Air. Storey for libel, and his
conse] had filed three special pleas in abatement,
alleging that tho Grand Jury was Illegal for Ger
tain TaaHonB.
THE FIRST PLEA
WAS tAat tue Grand Jury was not selected By the
County Commissioners, tint the reaire was not
put into the Sleri1's hanls ten days before the
commencement Of the term aud that it waa not
properly made to the Court to appear that the
Cause OF justice demanded { special ven;re. Tho
latter was an avermcnt that waa not trayersob1e
the record in the case recltcd that, on the 9th
OF October, it appeared to the Court that
the cause OF justice required it, and therefore
special venire WAS ordered. The revised statutes
provided that " the Judge of any cour. Of rsc-
ord may order special venire to be Issued for
Grand Jur:: at any time when he shall be of
opinion that public justice requires it," That
disposed of the first Plea.
THE SECOND
alleged that one OF the jurors, Reuben Taylor.
was over GO years OF age. AS 4 complete and
conclusive answer ho read the following from
tho statute: It No indictment shall bo nuashed
for want OF the words with force Of nrms.' or
OF the occupation residence OF the accused
nor by reason Of tho disqualification Of any
Grand Juror" It might be said that the matter
under consideration WAS not motion to quash;
it WAS, however, the came thing in effect, and it
the demurrer we're ove1ruled mud tho plea there
by sustained. the indictment would be quashed.
man over 81 years OF age was not disqualified,
and it had been 30 decided in the case OF
nurphy vs. The People (37th Ill.,, the Supreme
Court holding that the fact could simply ba
urged as persona1 exemption by the juror
when presented. No provision WIS mada
for challenging Grand Jurors; the stat
ute mentioning only Petit Jurors; aud tha
law nov was the same rs when The Murphy case
VAS decided The Legislature, evidently. from
it's language, did not intend that any such cnal-
lenge should be allowed in the case Of Grand
Jurors az in the case OF Petit Jurors. lie co.,
ccded that the array of the Grand Jury might
be challenged for certain causes, but that was
not the question before the Court. The array
had not been challenged; tho Indictment had
been returned into open court, and plea
tered at the term succeeding that 1t which tho
vua fa4
OF arguing this point, since tbs matter had been
thoroughly discussed in ths Alde.manic cases, the
Court Judge Tree) holding that to quash Al
indictment on such ground would be al OBJ
struction to justice, the statute not contem-
plating that any such attack should be sustained
by tho courts.
THE THIRD PLEA
WIS that one Of the Grand Jurors had served
upon three prior Grand Juries within year.
Tint was not cause Of challenge to G1aad
Juror, and would no; ba good one against 1Ir.
Gaskins II called upon to serve on Petit Jury,
because serving upon Grand Jury was not
serving " ~ Juror upon tho trial OF cause"
After citing several authorities on tho
question OF age, showing that tho
TACT OF man being GO years
old did not djequalfy him. adr. Reed eaid he
would admit TINT decisions in other States could
be fouad wherein it was laid down that, if 4 man
was an alien or not OF tho proper age, it vas
good reason for quashing; but in those States
the statute with reference to the Grand Jury
WAS different from that enacted by tho Legis1a-
tura OF Illinois; and the Supreme Court Of thia
State, in ono case. decided that even where a
party was an alien he was a competent person to
cit on Petit Jury in murder Gaze, and that ago
Vas not disqualification for either Grand or l.
Petit Juror
then replied: Among the other things set IN i1
he plea MAS that it did not properly appear tc
he Court that the Grand Jury wac required, and
he controversy might safely be reated upon that
,imple proposition It WAS admitted that it did
1ot appear to the Court that the Grand Jury was
:eQuired-
Ar. Reed-1he language Of the pies is Is did
not properly appear"
Az- Assay supposed it would be fairer for both
des to present the question as it legally arose,
simply upon tho clause Of the statute quoted
y A1r. Reed: mo Indictment shall be quashed by
'eason of the disqualification of any Grand
Juror" To determine very inportsnt question
arising upon that statute it rould bo necessary