The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1875-09-17

supportsd By principle have shown.
The learned councll for The prisoner
haa not clted IN authority saatAinine Il.
while I have proper regard for ne
declslens Of thla court, however an
cle0t tAey nay b, end acknowledge
ny Obligation % obey the maxim STATE
decesee, ] nm not thereby required 10
follow caee that has been overruled.
The state " Carney and the state "
Aaslem supra settle princlplrs utterly
inconsistent with Dutell " the state
they eAy IL foundation By removing L.
only support and practically, though
not In words, override Il. am 70.
lieved Of the responsibility Of discloe-
lpg my readiness 10 override it--ihAt
has bean s6cctuAlly done. Hut am
froe 70 disclose thAt unsupported
though 1.-THE by precedent and prlnci.
pie. would hesitate long before
would rs'uso 10 follow u, wore tho
c.ted conflicting cases ont Of tho way.
am utterly unable to discover foros
in tho argument found In tho opinion
OF the majority 20 support the post.
tion therein assumed, that Il WA essen.
tial 10 the protection OF dstsndant's
rights that th0 ballots should have
besn compared with the Jury Hat by
the sheriff. Tho position II this, and
its statement AbundAntly rctutes Il:
The act OF comparing tho ballots Wa
essential 10 tho promotion Of tho
rights Of tho prisoner; tho oct Wa
fairly and fully done by IN oiilcer not
named In tho law while tho defend.
ant had tho benefit OF tho act, 10 snf-
fsred prejudice because II was not donc
BY tho proper pcraon. This 10 giving
moro force aud importance 70 forms
and names than ~ are accustomed 10
witnoss now -a.dAys.
Tho authori lon cited 10 support tho
position that III tho trial 81 causo
should b before person not authori-
red TO oct - Judge, conviction. Al
though obtained In strict accord with
oil the forms and rules Of law ID every
Other rospeot, would b void" can
hardly DO disputed anywhere, and Il
would assonish mo to hear any ono
deny the proposition. Tho dihlculty
j In its application 70 this oasc. A.
No have shown tho grand jur, WAS
legal body Notwithstanding tho irrega-
laritles complained Of. Il was thcrc.
iore authorized 10 Ind tho present In
olctmont. II authorities DO cited hold.
Ing that = judgment oil one nlllug : IN.
dioial poaition would DO void on Ac-
count OF Irregularities In bis d elton
or appointment, which went 10 tho
form, thereof, though he was In fact
elected or appointed, they would
support the conclusion Of the fore
going opinion nothing short Of this
will.
Great reliance d placed In the fore.
going opinion upon section 1887 OF tho
code, which directs that tho motion to
Ut aslde ~ indictment must b cas-
taluod II "ths grand Jury va not seloc.
ted, drawn, Summoned, impAnneled Or
sworn - prescribed By law" THIS
relates 70 tho manner OF doing tho scts
mentioned and b 70 the effect that II
thai manner % not In compliance With
law tho iury Wa not . legal body and
the indictment would therefore b bod.
but We have seou that - % the man.
ner Of u ct prescribed By statute, the
law will b. construed % directory
when the manuer doos not appear ..
sonelal % The judicial mind. Another
way Or manner viii b held 1 oompli.
anoe with tho law. The section Of tho
code nader confederation there.
AAan AAns AAA unumfna ~ NnAtnA.