Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-02-09

\
Service in the morning and at night by Rev.
DR.. Bullock. Childrsns meeting 1T 3 y. m.
SECOND PREsBYr'N. CaURcH-Servicem morn.
ing and night by by Rev. VIM. Dinwiddie
METH. EpIs. CHURcH-Serviee at II a. m.
METH EPIs CHURCH SoUTH-Service at II
q. m. and : 80 p m. by Rev. Samuel Register,
D. D., P. e.
METH. Prot. CHURcn--Service morning and
night by Rev. Mr.. Graham. Subject at night,
THE constitution of man in the future state. "
Communion after morning sermon.
BAPTIST CHURCH-Service morning and at
night by Rev. Mr.. Penick.
GERMAN LUTHERAN-No service.
YOU'VE MEMS CHRISTIAN AssocrATIoN.I
Prayer meeting in the Baptist Church
at o m. Aims House at q p. M. Jail at 81 p. m.
The SHINN CAsE-The hearing of the evi,
dence upon tho pleas in abatement to the 10
gality of the grand jury which found the 10.
dictments against the defendant was concluded
Yesterday evening. The testimony was mainly
to the point that t. Mod. Merchant, one OF
the grand Jurors, was not a resident OF the CITY
of Alexandria, and therefore disqualified to
act. 1t was proved substantially that Merch.
ant came here about one year ago from Manas.
sas TO seek Office 10 Washington that he had
been solicited to register and become voter,
which be decoed to do, for the reason stated
by him that his purpose was to hold his resi-
dsuoe 10 Prince William county, in the first
Congressional district, because his iDtiueCc' With
bis representative. Major Douglas, would be
impaired by the change. He swore on the
stand that be claimed his citizenship IN the first
he came here for the accomplishment OF a spe-
ci6c object, which had failed :; that he had ra-
fused to register or vote here; that he had
never been assessed with tho capitation tax CT
any other tax here
The Commissioner of Revenue testified that
he had never assessed Merchant with any tax &.
because he bad never been regarded as reol
dent of the city that this oanvasSers for the
election had furnished q supplementary list OF
those not assessed, but that Merchants name
did not appear, and that be was regarded al a
nonresident of the city.
The Commonwealth Attorney argued that
the facts showed that Merchant really resided
here, but claimed his residence 10 Prince vii
liam tor the purpose of obtaining ofico. Such
things were customary. When he heard that
this objection might be raised he bad CONVEX
satioa with Merchant in which he declared that
he was resident of the city. A trap had been
set to catch the juror, add his declarations
should not be considered. He argued that the
law governing venires made special provlsIno
that the persons summoned should be OF the
city if they were the bystanders, but the grand
Jury Law omitted the provision. and he claimed
that the facts showed that Merchant was
resident:
ond sad that by the common law the grand
;urv shou Id consist of twelve men at the least,
overv one of whom should be inhabitants Of the
county TO. which they were sworn to inquire.
This prinoiple is laid down in Gritty Criminal
j,w and likewise by that ancient compiler OF
tho Meas of the crown, Hawkins, who declares
ofthe grand Jury that every one OF them should
be Of the same oouay.
This was tho ancient law Of common ances
try and the statutes from the time Of Henry H.,
relating to grand Jurors, had been passed in aid
of the common law and not iu derogaNon OF its
principles. The constitutions OF tho State 10
Art 8; Sec. provides that all persons entitled
to vote and hold office shall DO entitled TO sit as
Jurors. This provision the Court Of Ap
neals decided 10 Chahoon's case 90 Graft,
did not operate proprta vtgore, but rs'
uuired the intervention of legislation TO
become effective. and the acts OF IA amend
ing other acts had prescribed the qualifications
of grand Jurors under the constitutional license.
That law provides that they must be qualified
voters of the city, and before that status could
The statute further requires that be must be OF
the couoty or corporation. Crafts case, 1t
,4ratt., does not reach the point, for that decs-
ion was rendered with reference to the veuire,
and the terms Of the statute are different. 1t
vas true that ihe juror whose qualification is
questioned was summoned from the "bystand
ers." but this fact did not Undue him with
qualifications be would not have possessed had
he been regularly summoned upon the PANEL.
As to the fact of residence the Jurors admls.
sions to the several witnesses who interviewed
him before he had become posted upon the 90.
lection to be raised closed tho question and
established the locus in the county OF Prince
William. Not only had he declared that his
place of residence, but the selection had been
based upon substantial reasons of pecuolary
profit. These declarations Of the juror are cvl,
dence against him that be cannot explain away.
The law is that upon an inquiry as to the State
of mind, sentiments or disposition OF person
ct particular period. his declarations and con.
versaous are .syideaesta s;ifs Condition
HEh i76d and the iDtention of the party. These
declarations had been made. They were sus'
tanned by the acts and conduct OF the Juror 10
refusing TO register and vote, 10 not possessing
any permanent or established abode, and 10 tue
lsct that he was engaged 10 . scheme Tor
Office under the Hsis of the federal ad'
miDistratiou, aud his permanent. residence
was conditioned upon the accomplishment OF
his object. The whole evidence disclosed
that the Juror Dever abandoned the ananlo
rerertc,,di, but has been throughout mere
itioersnt or sojourner, with 20 permanent ABODE
and not qualified to act for tho great body OF
the people of Alexandra. ltwas charged mat
trap had been get for the juror, but 1t was an
honest trap to catch the truth. and 1t was tor
tuuateIy, successful. Traps had been set. but
they had beeo set for tho defendant, and eDoom.
passed him while, IS i: were, he was walklp'
10 the dark. Deep sbysses were yavnip- on
every side, and bis footstsps must DO guarded
to escape thesthreateped dagger.