The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-05-17
curtis were drawn alternately and ,

courts were drawn alternately and uItha..
interruption by two OF the cornrniasamnnasa.aNo W
the presence Of the criminal sheriff ah.lla
names drawn by one commissioner h s.tse
placed upon list for one court. and t pbolug
drawn by the other commissioner ,1nnn non . ~ H
for the other court, the names being raed WI W.
in an audible voice prior to making n1t wv
lists. The court fails to sos any vioiatinra Y
law In this. Two commissioners a"os.. q
-and the sheriff clearly partieinatadsu Y
everything connected with the drawir,vs " y
each court, except ia the mere act Of wi ta
drawing the names from the wheel or ~ n,ss Z
and 1t was manifest impossibilitv tbs NM II.
three should unite in the act Of drawin~ me. nv ~
each name. The jliries were drawn =, ~ ~
day ordered, and the law does NOT dIrao w I
method differing from that followed bv iii III 4
commissioners and sheriff. - siis
Ia Wendell On. Ylp. SIT, Crane vs. Dygert
"Ihe challenge to the array was properly
for the Court Of Common pleas and and ~ ns,ae.g
Sessions were drawn at the same Tina farros
no ground OF objection to this panel. = 80
''They were kept entirely distinct Az much
so as though the drawing had been On 'd Mil
the sheriff" and there ID no allegation h
prove any fraud perpetrated or wrong com ~
rnitted. The accused has been IN n yray
preindiced. 40 Blatchford 81, United Statas
vs.. Fallman; same VS.. Pike, Id. and Id. and
cases there cited - '''ss
In the case OF Dakocha, 20 An, as, the conn
say that the 'law prescribes the mode ans
manner OF drawing the array, and that mUds
must be pursued or the array will be ellaabpdyS
The evidence dlsclose5 violation 81 laxby
the commissioners or sheriff, but in the0as
last cited there was direct violation q
positive mandate of the statute. In thA
instance the law required that the Dand
should have been drawn from the list Of rep
istered voters Of 1867, whereas 1t was drawn
and returned from similar list for anothW
year. That case and that Of Morgan ind
Wilson, No. 20 An. 442, are not parallel WITH
the one here; and In the opinion OF the cont
the Newhouse case fNo. 20 An. S24L dos
question. In the Newhouse case, the 3d.
preme Court decided that the jury commits
sioners must themselves make the selection
OF names for the list. There is no doubt thst|
the commissioners selected all the names oil
our present panel.
It Is ordered that the challenge be oyerrulA
The trial OF the case was then immediatdy|
proceeded with, District Attorney Flnney bel
ing assisted In the prosecution by JudgeG
H. Braughn, counsel Of the insurance con
pany.
While impaneling the jury one Of the juror
f. German. while on the stand testified thk1
he had reached the age OF II years on tbl
fourth day OF the present month.
A jury was finally obtained by evening 81
the investigation of the case was commeaol|
The taking of evidence was conclude n
midnight, when District Attorney Flnnyl
opened the argument In behalf Of the Stitl !
and was followed By Mr. Luxembourg Ton tk1
defense, who In turn was followed by JUDI
Braughn, who closed the case for the proSet
ton.
Judge Whitaker then delivered his ehatNI
and the jury retired at half-past O'Clock.