National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-12-07
THE GRAND JURY QUESTION:
THE LATE GRAND JURY DECIDED TO
BE ILLEGAL.

THE LATE GRAND JURY DECIDED TO
BE ILLEGAL.
Tho case of ]. A. HUFF, which came up Satur-
day on appeal from MIR. Justice Humphreys to the
General Term, is, as to its present consequences,
one of the most important cases that has been
heard this year. The case at bar is merely one
in which the accused, after conviction and SEN
tence, has the indictment Qusshed because it was
found by body that had none of the power of q
grand jury but the effect Of tho ruling is to de-
clare that there is now no indictments pending in
the safe burglary conspiracy cases, and to dis
charge the bail in these cases. The decision is in
substance as follows:
The preliminary point in the case was the right
of the Judge holding the Criminal Court to review
a case on bis own motion, and order o new trial
after an appeal had been taken. On this point
the court was unanimous against the power Of
the judge. The court Judge Wiley prOnOuncing
the opinion) held that the court below erred in
sustaining the demurrer to the indictment. The
act of ISL, he said, did not limit the number OF
names the commissioners should select for the
jury, and he could not see that there was any
neglect as to their appointment. He did not con-
slider that these commissioners should have been
selected from the cities and county.
The question as to whether the act of II re-
pealed the act OF '62 as to confer absolute su-
thOrity to select what number of jurors and by
what means they deemed proper was next con-
sidercd, and he claimed that the act Of II did not
effect the act of '62 except to appoint commits
sioners to do what the other officers did. These
commissioners did not follow the law in making
the lists; as they were formerly made; the boun:
daries had been disregarded. 1t was claimed
that the organic act wiped out the boundaries,
but this was not so as the 37th section continued
them. The point that Waters, Newton and
Reese were not taxpayers was alluded to, and
he said that the act Of '62 clearly imposed the
duty of selecting taxpayers for the lists. If the
names Of such had been placed in the box, then
none but taxpayers would have been drawn.
The pleadin2s show further that twenty-three
names were drawn, and some were excused, and
to supply the places of those excused four names
were drawn from the jury box.
The law provided that in place Of those excused
persons are to be summoned from the bystanders
and dOesnOt provide for going to the box. The
law. too, requires that the twenty-thre first
drawn from the box shall constitute the grand
jury; but it does not say that twenty-three grand
Jurors shall be present but there shall be twenty
three sworn members OF that body, and in this
case it appears there were but nineteen sworn
members.
Judge Olin concurrcd.
Judge Macarthur dissented.
The following order was entered in the case:
That the order sustaining the demurrer to tho
plea in the court below be. and the same is here
by, Overruled, and that the proceedings in the
court below after the prayer for appeal be set
aside and held for naught, aud that the indict-
ment be dUaShd.