The morning call., 1891-04-04
GRAND JURY.
Will Partridge's NOn-Residence
Inyalidate Its Work?

The discovery has been made that Samuel
G. Partridge, member of the Grand Jury
of this city and county, is a resident of Ala
media County, and it is giving rise to deal
of commotion as to the legality of the work
thus far done by that body. Mr.. Partridge
is doing business at 30 Bush street in this
city, but his residence is at 1922 Webster
street, Oakland.
He explains that the question of residence
occurred to him at the time he was sum-
m0ned, but upon consulting an attorney he
was told that it would not interfere with his
serving. He has ever since been hard and
conscientious worker on the jury, although
nothing has been done that could not have
been done without him.
Judge Murphy, who was presiding Judge
at the time this jury was drawn, says that
the law directs the names to be taken from
the assessment roll. The law has been COM
piled with in Mr.. cartridges case. for he is
on the assessment roll. In examining per-
sons for the Grand Jury it is customary for
the Judge to ask about residence. The
Judge did not wish to express an opinion as
to the legality OF their indictments Tor lear
the question might come before him for de-
cson. The Supreme Court has decided
that in case of trial jurors. even aliens can
serve If no objection is made to their being
sworn in. Non-residence may be made
cause for challenge, but not for reversal.
Judge Wallace expressed the opinion that
the Indictments of this jury would be de-
clared Illegal. The code says they must be
citizens not residents) of the county. A
person who is not resident of the county
may be impaneled on grand jury. but the
fact of non-resideDce may be ground for
setting aside an Indictment.
Tie law appears to be somewhat con-
Trajectory on the subject. Section $50 of the
Penal Code says: A challenge to an in
dividual grand juror may be iuterposed for
one or more Of the following causes only:
That he IS a minor; that he is an allen;
that he Is insane; that he is prosecutor
upon Il charge against the defendant; that
he is a witness on the part of the prosecution,
etc. that he is in a state of mind that he
cannot act impartially, etc. Not word,
however, is mentioned about residence.
Section 995. Subdivision 4, Of the same
code, says:
The indictment or Information must be set
aside by tile court in which the defendant Is ar
rdigned, upon his motion, when The defendant
had not been held TO answer before the finding
OF the Indictment, on any ground which would
have been good ground for challenge either TO
the panel or TO any individual grand juror.
That is before any person indicted has
pleaded he may move to set aside the indict-
meat on the ground that the jury is not le-
gaily constituted or like objection. But
once he has pleaded he valves all defects in
the indictment except as to the jurisdiction
OF the court.
In the case of the People versus Hunter
decided by the Supreme Court several years
ago, in which this very question was raised,
that tribunal said:
1t Is settled doctrine of this court that an OBJ
lection to the formation OF a Grand jury cannot
be presented In tile court below on motion to
set aside The indictment.
1t would seem, therefore, that the ques-
ton OF residence Is not so very serious Ill
regard to grand juror.