Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-01-09
QUESTION OF CONTEMPT.
A S0LDIER'S FIRM STAND;
CsusributinR Member or \ Volunteer Com
psny Who Refused to Appear for Jury
Service, and Was Justined.

psny Who Refused to Appear for Jury
Service, and Was Justined.
In the Supreme Court Of Appeals
yesterday, in the case of Miller rs.
the Commonwealth, Judge Lacy de-
liyered the opinion, as follows
The plaintiff in errer, z. ii. Miller,
was summoned to serve az juror in |
the Corporation Court of Danyille, on
the Cd day Of June, 1884. Upon the |
said Miller failing to attend in obedi-
ence to the said summons he was sum
moned by order of the court to appear
at once to show cause why he should
not be fined for contempt.
He thereupon appeared in court in re-
sponse to the summons, and being duly
sworn, answered that being contrib
uting member of volunteer military
company of the city, known as the Dan
vile Grays, organized under the laws
Of Virginia, he did not consider himself
liable to be summoned and to be CON-
PEELED to serve as juror, and therefore
did not attend the said court as juror
as aforesaid.
But the court deeming this answer
insufficient, and his refusal to attend as
aforesaid contemptuous to the said
court, fined him twenty dollars. To
this judgment of the Corporation
Court of Danville, upon the petition Of
the said T.. II. Miller, writ of error
was awarded to this court. The record
shows that the plaintiff in error was a
contributing member of a volunteer mil
itary company organized under the
laws of Virginia, and that the chief
officer of said company had duly filed
with the clerk of the said Corpora
ton Court the roll or list Of the active
and contributing members of said COM
pany in conformity with section l6 of
an act approved March II, 1884, to
provide for the government of Virginia
volunteers, and that the name of said
f. ii. Miller was upon said list. The
said sixteenth section of the act in ques
ton provides that each active and con-
tributing member of every legally-or-
ganized volunteer company shall be en-
titled to receive from the commanding
officer thereof certificate of member
ship. which certificate of membership
shall exempt but not disqualify the per-
son therein named from jury duty, for
the period of one year from the date
of his said certificate, in any and
all the courts of the Commonwealth.
But to cntitle the members of such
company to this exemption the captain
or chief officer of such company shall
annually. on the lst of May in each
wear. furnish to the clerk of the Hust-
ings or County Court of the county,
citv. or town wherein such company
may be list containing the name OF
each member of his company, and
where there are contributing members
to his company the name of each con-
tributing member shall be furnished
likewise.
This law was complied with in all
respects. The plaintiff in error was a
contributing member of this military
company. duly organized under the
laws of Virginia the chief officer OF
his company had duly filed the list OF
the company with the clerk Of this
court. and his name appeared thereon
he was exempt from the duty required
of him by the law. and he duly pleaded
his exemption before the court in hi'
answer to the rule awarded against him
And yet the presiding judge considered
this answer insufficient. We are no
furnished with any reasons for thi'
judgment by the judge who rendered
il and imposed this fine.
But it Is suggested in argument by
the Attornev-Gcncral on behalf of th'
Commonwealth that when persol
summoned to serve as a juror Is eX
empt by law from such service he D
nevertheless obliged to attend and g
himself excused from service by tn
court. or he viii he IN contempt; tha
the duty of the plaintiff IN error whcl
summoned 10 attc.d tl curt 10 scry
A. . ,4Ia. rat b.. u'H..- ..r 44. uD'
A. % VII .,hcr hc va. Acppt from sue
s,.vi,,. 3d.. - a. the cous. Nnd not uu
Geitatc go be the Judge of the question
himself. ndcr the 18th section Of IN
act of ls7l-'2. p. 1913. after which sec
ton IL. Just considered, was modelled
and which was repealed by the act d
question. which was approved Marc
L.. 1854. this exemption was provide
for in similar language hut the pro
vision Of the law which requires the li~
10 De left with the clerk by th
chief officer of the company was no
part Of the former law. and wa
doubtless enacted to provide for th
very circumstance suggested by IN
argument Just cited. IL would oitc
happen that although a citizen woul
have IN his hands a certificate of mem
bership. the officers Of the county pre-
pairing a jury-l,t would summon hlr
To perform th. public service irot
/ " men Nt " IL NN thH 'NN"'l'f' -'
the citizen might be put to as muc
trouble and Inconvenience 10 plead hl
Exemption as # hc had performed th
-cryicc. 4 citizen who has ridden
l,ng distance in the country to attend
,,ur' 10 get excused from serving on
ury. or who ha, already left his bus
4 IS in a city to attend court for tia
purpose. could find but little relief
this tardy recognition of his legal right
But what excuse is there for a clerk
summon or a Judge 10 compel a cliIzc
t. be summoned to the performance
atv public service in the court irol
which he l. exempt by law. when u
fat that he Is 50 exempt Is IN q
, hands of the very officer who ISSUE
: er,inst him thi, unlawful requlsltlol
, snt placed there by the express maj
dat. of the law. If the court can lav
, fully compel the citizen to attend upo
the -ourt to get excused from a seryiC
from which the law eXenptS him. q
law may be practically annulled b
the court. But it is as much the dat
of tie court 10 enforce the law as 1t
the privilege of the citizen to claim !
exemption.