The Ouachita telegraph., 1880-07-09

court erred in ordering talcsmcn jurors
to be summoned for the trial of the
cause, for the reason that twelve jurors
of the regular veniere emPanelled to
try another case were in an adjoining
room deliberating on u verdict, and
that, therefore, the panel was not ex
hausted so rs to justify the suInmoning
of taliemen.
3rd. That the accused objected 10 the
introduction In evidence of his volun-
tary declaration, made before and taken
down in writing by the Parish Judge,
acting as committing magistrate, be-
cause 1t did not show afilrmatively by
the certificate of the magistrate that
without threats of punishment, hope of
reward or other improper inducements.
I. The accused urged his objection
to the manner of drawing tho jury by
a motion to quash the indictment and
by challenge to the array. The re-
view shows that the jury was drawn
by virtue of and in obedience to Act
No. of the Legislature, approved
Feb. 20, 1880, which provides for a
term of the District Court for the par
ish of Ouachita to he held on ~rhe first
Monday of April of this year, and re-
quires that it shall be n jury term; it
further requires that a jury be drawn
for that term according to existing laws.
Now, as Act No. A of 1877, was tho
only law then existing directing the
mode of drawing juries in this State,
and because that Act requires the per-
formancc Of that duty at least fifty
days before the next term of the Dis
trict Court, counsel for accused con-
tends that the jury in this case,
1r ~, tho CTfl, NTors.R, Tnp n form of
court, to begin on tho 5th of April
following, was illegal and null, as the
drawing thereof was viOlative of that
provision of Act No. Al Of 1877. The
Legislature in cnacting law on the
20 of February ordering terms Of court
to bo held in certain parishes in this
State on tho lst Monday of April fol-
lowing, knew that its act could not be-
come operative in any or all of these
parishes only twenty days after pro-
mitigation, and that no drawing of
jurics hereunder could take place fifty
days before the session of such court,
and yet the act positively orders the
drawing of jurics for all such terms of
courts.
We cannot adopt an Interpretation or
construction OF the law which places
the Legislature in an attitude of stuiti-
flying itself by requiring tho performs
ance- Acts rendered impossible by the
very nature of things. Such con-
structfon Is repugnant to all precedents
and condemned by our Jurisprudence,
which discOuntenances an intcrprota-
ton which would defeat the object of n
statute. The evident object of this stat
ute was to establish terms of tho Dis
trict Courts in the State, to begin with
a jury term for certain parishes on the
1st Monday OF April of this year. Tho
Interpretation cOntended for by counsel
for the accused would have defeated
that object of the Statute, which re-
quired Il jury term of the District Court
in Oaachita parish On the 1st of April
last. We are, therefore, compelled to
conclude that the Legislature intendetl
for those jury terms of court to suspend
the operation of that part of the Act OF
1877 which required tho drawing of the
jury fifty days before the session of the
court. If any doubt could remain on
the mind 1t is easily dispelied by a mere
reference to tho repeating clause of the
| Act, which rel,eats all acts in conflict
Herewith. The objection to tho legal
ity of the jury is, therefore, untenable,
drawn in compliance with Act No.
of 1880.
The other two grounds of error arc
incorporated in document purporting
TO be II bill of exceptions which is signed
by the District Judge in which it is re-
lated that counsel for the accused oh
jected To- the swearing in of talcsmen a.
jurors on the ground that the panel was
not exhausted, and that there wcrt
other jurors OF tho regular vcniere de
liborating on Il verdict in another case
1t is further related in that document
that tho accused objected to the intro
ductiOn as evidence of his voluntary
declaration taken before tho Parist
Judge, because the certificate of tina
officer failed 10 show that no threats
promises or other Inducements wer.
used to draw out the declaration. I}u
nothing in tho instrument or in tn
record informs us whether the objcc
tions of the accused were sustained o
overruictl by tho Judge; neither doe
the document contain any of the rca
sons given by the Judge for his rulin,
such AS it may have been, and beside
) the voluntary declaration objected t
was not attached 10 tho dOcumen
styled IL bill of exceptions, and is no
even to bc found in the transcript. Fo