The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1884-10-11

Another reason assigned is:
Because Alexander Majors a mem
Der of said grand jury, was not at the
time said jury was impaneled, nor
when said indictment was found, an
eligible juror as provided by law, be-
cause he had not resided IN this Third
Judicial District six months next pre-
ceding the time when he was selected by
the Probate Judge or the Clerk of the
District Court of said district, to serve
as a Juror; and because he was not then,
and has not since been, taxpayer in
this Territory; and because he had
served in this court as n petit juror
within two years next preceding the
impaneling of said grand Jury and the
finding of said indictment, tO-wit, at the
April term, 1879, of said court, az APP
pears from the record thereof; and his
name was illegally returned to the jury
box and again drawn therefrom as a
grand Juror for the September term,
1879, of this court"
1t appears from the evidence that the
family of Majors-Whateyer family he
had-resided in the State of California;
that he was here on business for near
or about two years, going home-as
think the evidence warrants the infer
ENTHUSIASTICALLY, and the question is,
was he a resident within the meaning
of the law2
have been referred in Wendell's Re
ports, (Vol. 10, page III to the case OF
Frost & Dickinson VS.. BrlSbln. Chief
Justice Nelson delivering the opinion
which appears to have been unani-
nous opiniOn-Of the Supreme Court OF
New York says:
SIN the matter of Fitzgerald q Gaines
q Haos1oA fhaf
ing into this State and remaining for
special and temporary purpose. with
out any intent of settling here, was not
resident within the meaning of the
act for relief against abSconding debt
Ors. In the matter OF Thompson Il
Wendell, 43) the court held under
the same act, but in respect TO an abb
sent debtor, that residing abroad, en-
gagged in business for time, whether
permanently or temporarily, was "a re-
sident residing out of the State. within
the meaning of the statute; that the &C
tual residence of the debtor was con-
templated, which might be distinct from
the place OF his dOmicile. In the matter
of Wrigley a Wendell, COZ, 8 id 134), it
was held that person remaining tenn
porarily for q month in the City OF New
York and Brooklyn, intending to COM
mence business in Canada, was not an
inhabitant or resident, within the
meaning of the insolvent act of
1918. In Roswell VS.. Kellogg go
Johns. Il. 30, IL n resident OF place
is said to be Synonymous with an in
ka6itant, one that resides in q place. 1t
may, / think, be doubted If this posi-
ton Is strictly accurate, as the latter
term implies q more fixed and perma-
nent abode than the former, and fire.
quently imparts many privileges and
duties which a mere resident could not
claim or be subject to. Approved lexi-
cographers give more fixed and dem
mite character to the place of abode OF
| the one than the other. Be this, how
ever, as it may, the cases cited above.
establish that the transient visit OF \
person for a time at place, does not
make him resident while there; that
something more is necessary to entitle
| him 10 that character. There must be
settled, fixed abode, an intention to
remain permanent at least for time,
for business or other purposes, to con-
stitute residence within the legal
meaning of that term"
Omitting a portion OF this opinion the
Court says further:
Zone of these cases expressly, and al
of them virtually, decide that actuG
residence, without regard TO the d0nicitt
/ oil the defendant, was within the con-
temptation of the statutes.
The domicile of citizen may be in one
State or Territory, and his actual resi-
dence in another"
That seems to me to be sound rea
soning. The duty of juror is burtheI
imposed upon citizen, and one which
he owes TO society, and of course if hC
| is, for the purpose of business ont of the
State where bis domicile is, in another
State doing business, and actually liyinf
there, he cannot discharge the duty
which he owes to society at the place o.
his domicile, and Ii he is otherwise un
Objectionable, see no reason why HI
should not perform that duty at thC
place where he actually lives and re-
sides, among the people with whom ht
is doing business and asSociating, anC
who know him; see no good reason
for 1t; and il would seem to me thai
this opinion is based upon sound reason
ing, and that on the principle there laiC
down l am disposed to hold that Mr.
Majors, while his domicile was in Cali
fornia, his residence for the purpose o
his doing his duty as juror was In the
Territory of Utah. 1t appears that Mr.
I | Nh JUS AdU OAA ~ lAA O~AOA( -
this court within two years or within
the time that he had actually lived here
Another objection that is made to Mr.
Majors as a juror is, that he was not ;
taxpayer. It appears that he was ex
, amined before he was taken on the Jury
, and that he was Intercepted as t
whether he was taxpayer or not, anC
among other things he answered that b.
, twas not; but was asked by the State
, Attorney if he didn't own q watch-ant
, think the inference is that referenc
, was made to the watch and chain tina
, ! he had on; it is reasonable to assume a
, least that the watch was with him-a1t
, The said that he had, and so far as tn
. examination shows as 20 that partlcula
point it ceased; the evidence did no
show with any certainty or clearnes tina
he may or,may not have beena taxpaye
in the Territory of Utah, according t
. his answer. l am inclined to think h
was, according TO the answers OF othe
witnesses. The presumption Is tina
. those Jurors were competent, and q
course the burden is upon the defend
/ ant to show clearly that they were no
to overcome the presumption by tn
; clear weight of evidence. 1t ls prett
, clearly shown that this man MAJOR
, didn't paw taxes here. It is shown tina
: he was not assessed, and that he did no
nav taxes: but the Supreme Court G