Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1891-05-08

lDere were one hundred dNu MY men
in the upper corridor of the Court House
Al two O'Clock, and when the main Court
room doors were unlocked by Sheriff
SteenrOd there was wild rush on the
part Of the spectators which placed the
doors IN very serious jeopardy. Ii was
the largest crowd yet present at the
tria.. and indicated pretty clearly what
may be expected when the case is thor
oughly opened up, and evidence Is ad-
duced. To-day and hereafter the Sher-
IN will station Deputies at the doors, IN
an endeavor 10 regulate che crowd and
prevent possible accidents or damage.
The jury were all in their places
promptly, and when the proceedings
were recommended the audience was
very large. The jury were not re-
Quired 10 remain in their seats during
the continuance OF the argument upon
the construction of the statute, but were
taken out for a walk in the custody OF
Deputy Sheriff Zane.
ARGUMENT RESUMED.
Co. Arnett reopened the argument,
by urging that the decision OF the SD
preme Court OF Virginia upon the stat
ute under discussion was binding, al
though wrong, until again passed upon
and reversed. \ decision upon the
point by other Courts could only be per-
SuaSive. TO a greater or less extent but
a decision by the Virginia Court was
virtually decision by West Virginia
Court He also claimed that when
one State adopted the statute
OF another State, the construction OF
the law must also be accepted. The
whole thing seemed TO him TO have been
conclusively settled by the decision OF
Judge Moncure. But it had been asked
IL over sixty, why not under twenty-oneF
There was the best reason in the world.
The common law fixed the qualification
thoroughly; they must be legal men
over the age of twenty-One. The man
under twenty-One never was legal
iuror anywhere, either by common or
statute law: but over the age OF twenty
one they continued 10 be legal men I'M
al age had impaired their faculties.
The Colonel made the further diStlnc-
ton, citing the Strauder case, that In
that case the colOred men complained
because they were debarred, as race,
from matters guaranteed them ~ the
Constitution Of the United States, while
in this case il was not an infringement
OF a privilege. or a restriction OF right,
but rather a denial 10 participate In du-
ties and burdens not especially deSlra-
bic.
CO.. Arnett was replied TO by Mr..
Howard, who at the outset said there
were four disqualification: Females,
persons uader twenty-One, over sixty,
and persons not residents of the State.
None OF these had been called IN QueS-
tiOn save the maximum limitation or
age. 1t had been claimed the common
law fixed the qualification AT twenty
one. II that was so the Legislature
had amended the common law. MIR.
Howard quoted from decision by
Judge Durfee, OF Rhode Island, in
case where the defense had objected to
a Juror over sixty, and the statute being
practically identical with that of West
Virginia, the Court held the word
liable" meant qualified, and decided
The matter against the Juror. This,
MI Howard held, was a settlement OF
the question
BY HIGH AUTHORITY.
He held that
In this case the prisoner is in the unheard-
o. and unparalleled position Of Directing 10
the eKcusing or Juror over sixty. III
We had been endeavoring to force such
= mau' on him, be would have had
grounds 20 20 10 the Supreme Court, but IN the
present case. the prisoner has simply nothing
whatever 20 do with IT, The prisoner has no
vested right 10 "a juror TT m4 has been drawn,
and found to De "a male citizen over twenty one
and over sixty, Sti the prisoner has no vested
,ight in him In other words, the Court could
have excused any man brought up here, and
the prisoner would have had no right TO object.
Juror can always be stood aside IN
the sound discretion OF the Court, even though
he has answered ali the questions and has
qualified. The juror has no vested
right 20 serve. 10 is a duty imposed on him,
not privilege 20 be sought. The de-
feuse has no right % contend for juror who
has been questioned.
THE DECISION.
In deciding the point, the Court said
ne had not had time To thoroughly con-
slider the matter, and therefore could
not be as concise as he would desire.
There was a good deal of divergence
among the elementary authorities, and
il was -. a point upon which there was
much dispute The Court cited several
authorities defining the point, and the
West Virginia statutes, and after a
consideration of the matter said
IL was clear 20 him that the con-
Guiding words of See two, were used
10 explain what was meant by the Leg
lSlature iu Sec. one, and il also seemed TO
him that the Legislature Of Virginia. in
amending the section, intended TO limit
IL 90 q qualification; if not, there re-
NAMED nothing prescribing Qualltca-
tiOns except the common law.
"Urou the brief examination have been able
90 give this matter, and Interpreting the law on
,he authority laid down bv Mr.. Abbott, was
inclined Co take the view, running down the
history OF the Questian the best could In the
brief time allotted, that this WAS intended 20
light OF the case in rs Grattau. and having some
doubt ~ il anyhow. have concluded 20 give
,be missioner the benefit Of the doubt, and Will
overrule the motion, and allow the jurors 10 re-
main
A JUROR EXCUSED.
The Court then took up the request OF
Juror w. f. kreig, 20 be excused on ac-
count of bad hearing, and he was eX-
cuSed
Capt. Dovener then asked that the
panel be called Siugly, aud Joseph w.
Robinson was called up.
O.-IBy DOvenerl since you were ac-
cep,ed, has any one talked to you about
tha case? A.-Only to ask me If | was
drawn-nothing about how l stood.
Q.-IBy Arnettl-You said you had
aever expressed an opinion. A.-1eS.
O.-Are YOU of the same opinion
>tul? Ayes.
Have YOU inquired OF any one to