The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-01-05
Further Skirmishing in the
Tweed Civil Suits.
Challenging the Array
of Jurors.
HOW PANELS ARE MADE UP.
An Interesting Contested
Will Case.
Legitimacy and Jurisdiction OF
the Board or Excise.

There was large attendance In the Supreme Court,
Circuit yesterday when the hearing Of the arguments
a. to the validity the struck jury resumed before
Judge westbrook. The first witness examined was
Mr. Douglas Taylor, who, in response to Mr.. Field,
said be was Commissioner Of Jurors.
O. You are now and have been Commissioner Of
Jurors since 1S647 A. Yes, sir
O There is another gentleman who lays claim to the
oficeP A. So have been informed, sir, by telegram
received 14aughter.)
He then proceeded to testify in reply to questions
put to him by counse-That the books shown him
registers containing lists of liable persons which
prepared by him in 1870; they copied from old
books and made up from the poll list Directory
and every other available source; he did not place all
the persons liable TO jury duty the lists for the
that those who had served within ten calendar
months wore entitled to repreve from further duty
during the year. and also that certain lists were
served for future
J. K. Alderman, of the Commissioner OF Jurors
Office recalled and examined and cross-examined
at some length
John J. Burns another employee Of the clerk in the
Commissioner OF Jurors office, shown the bundle
OF ballots for June 1875 and he asked whether in
making out list for June 1876 he added any names
to them except those who to the Office and gave
their names He answered that all, except those
who had been exempted the previous year.
Elk Judge Peabody, recalled by Mr.. Peckham testi-
fed that he is one OF the choosers and the
George Southwick the list of twenty -four ought
TO be John c. SouthwcK business partner of Jackson
Schultz; that was the gentleman they intended to
On cross.examInation the witness admitted that he
did not know that Mr., Southwick's partner was wit
Mr. Field said he wished II understood that the coun-
sci for the defence had no objection to Mr. Southwck
personally they had the highest regard for his charac
ter but for his (counses part If he had known that
Mr.. Southwick was partner OF Mr.. Schultz he would
This concluded the testimony, and counsel at
proceeded to discuss the legal bearings Of the case
MT Field contended that under the present state OF
the law 1t impossible select special jury in this
county 1t the plain intent OF the law that struck
juries we're to be selected from the whole body OF the
county those believed to be Indifferent and best quail
fled to try the II violation both OF law and
justice to select partial list The Commissioner
OF Jurors in no respect complied with the law. 1t
to say that it couldn't be done. Are not the
resources Of this imperial city sufficient to prepare
list Of rs 900 names between May and Sep
temberf AS to Mr. Southwick, II was plain
there was mistake, but the defcndan. didn't
make IT, The returned George w. South
wick /" without giving residence or occupation There
are two George W. southwicks in the Directory, and
should they select John Yet If his is omitted
there but twentythree left, and you have not
Mr. Peckham proposed to prove that Mr.. John C.
Southwck was summoned and in court
Mr. Fied-Then shall want the Sheriff to tell me
why he served John @. southwick whom you have
George G. on the list.
Mr.. Peckham-Tn tell you; was because told
him
Mr. Field-1 have doubt Of it; that is just the way
this case has been conducted.
Mr. Carter, on behalf OF the prosecution then began
his argument in opposition TO the points raised by Mr.
Field for the defendant
described how struck juries formerly selected in
England by what was called pen practice" the eisor
strklng his pen between the leaves of the book
tanning the names and taking the name nearest the
point OF his pen.
Mr. Carter followed on the same. He said 1t was a
Challenge not TO individual Jury. IL
was question raised by sutton who must claim that
he was injured by some irregularity OF the law The
Iigant in this case with regard whom the statute
passed, came into court and submitted that
lie administration had been complied with and
sequenty that the should be laid over to some in
definite day Ii dilatory objection. In the case
of administrative statutes, enacted for the purpose
of public convenience and public utility, aside
from any special attention of the rights TO individuals
II there had been failure TO comply fully with all
their provisions the only consequence dervsble
that tho officer must be called to account for IT, and
Individual could take advantage Of 1t, still less
couId he arrest the adm N israon OF justice In fact
no substantial objection had been offered. The Com
missioner Jurors had not proceeded negligenty bet
he had in every respect Piled with the provisions
OF the law II could not be possible that for the past
this country II the jury array was challenged. The
Legislature never intended any such consequence from
any rreguarity But as matter Of fact, the Comms.
substantially complied with the statute and If
the eisors select from that body of the county
would take several weeks TO do it The main question
10 be determined was whether the Jurors who had
boon summoned in this legally qualified,
and we're they Of such character that neither party
could take Just ground Of exception.
Mr. David Dudley Field replied for the defendant.
He said that IT, as conended on the other side, the
questions were trivial why did not the plaintiff take
common jury. The defendant was content to do so.
There were two objections to this panel, only one OF
which the learned counsel had argued each in itself
bong complete the regularity Of the panel
FIRST to the lists from which the names were.taken,
and second, to the names which we're not upon
any lists Instead of sending down the lists Of all jurors
liable TO serve the of only 26O61 were sent in
To say that this a complete list required by law
was, IL seemed to him (Mr Field, TO ri1e with Ian
guage The question whether such list furnished
The material for the selection Of special jury 1t
exceptional proceeding contrary the ordinary
OF the law, and that the question the Court had
20 decide The Clerk had not pretended 10 comply
with the law, and the question jurisdictional
one Counsel commented severely the special Jury
system and referred TO the eloquent denunciatons OF
Currau and Gratan against the packed juries Ire
land Special juries we're in measure packed juros,
and this attempt TO pack a jury to find YER
dict against Mr. Tweed thing that had been done
IN quarter OF century But II special Jury were
60 be selected the law must be complied with, every
step must made conformable TO law, and IL his
right and his duty 10 insist upon that and n there.
fore the Court did not find itself compelled to disalov
the challenge, 1t but helped, as he thought, to the
preservation OF the general system OF the Law Of dis
continuing these features in special cases
The Court adjourned until halfpast ten O'Clock THU
morning