The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1891-07-02

\ NICE LEGAL QUESTION.
An Abrupt Ending OF the Eichiand Court
The Jurors Illegally Served-The
Points and Judge Fraser'S Deci-
| REGISTER, June, 2Jlh.


Yesterday was the lay set for the
second trial Of Wade Haincs for the
murder of Miss Florence Hornsby, but,
greatly to the surprise of every one, the
case did not come off and goes over TO
the October term Of court. When the
case was called 4 motion was made by
the attorneys for the defense for a con-
tinuance on the ground Of abseEce Of a
material witness. Judge Fraser ruled
that the counsel must submit in writ
ing what witness would testify if pre-
sent. and if admitted by the solicitor,
the case would proceed. This was done
and both sides then announced them
selves as ready for trial. Thereupon
Mr.. c. A. Douglass ofcounsel for Halnes
interposed challenge to the array OF
grand and petit jurors and moved to
quash the panel, both grand and petit.
The point raised by Mr.. Douglass
against the venire for the grand jury
was: l. That there was not affixed to
the venire the seal of the court; >. That
the writ summoned the grand jury only
; for the March term Of court and not
for the year as required by law.
In reference to tn, question raised as
to the seal: there was seal clerk S
seaD tothe certificate Of the jury COM
missioners. but none TO the writ OF
venlre.
The Supreme Court, as cited by coun-
sci in the case of the State VS.. DoZler, :
Speers Reports, 81, decided that the
writs of venire, both grand and petit,
are parts of the record, and a fatal de-
feet in either is fatal to i case. 1t also
| has decided that the absence OF j seal
to either writ makes it no writ in law,
and it is therefore fatally defective.
The point thus raised by Mr.. Doug
lass is an exceedingly interesting one,
and is far-reaching as it will clearly
affect the integrity of the grand jury at
the October term of the court; and IN
view ofits Importance Judge Fraser de-
clined to rule upon it instantef and re-
served his decision.
The second point made by counsel
was to the writ Of venire for the petit
jury.
Several points were raised lis regarded
this: |. That the law requires that
| thirty-siX good and lawful men shall
be summoned to serve on the jury and
that one man on the panel drawn was
dead when drawn and two others were
exempt by law. 2. That the law re-
quires "the sheriff. to summon jurors,
and that it must be done by him, or at
least by deputies who have regularly
taken the oath Of office taken by
the Sheriff himself, and that this
venire was served by three persons be-
sides the Sheriff, and who were not SO
appointed. 5. That when jurors are alb
sent they can only be legally served by
leaving the notification at their resi-
denc, and not at place of business, as
was done with some of the jurors on
this panel. Judge Fraser sustained the
points raised by Mr. Douglass, and
issued the following order to quash the
venire:
STATE OF SOUTH CARoLINA-in the
Session Court of Richland.
The State VS.. Wade Haines-Murder.
Upon the call of this case for trial a
challenge to the array OF petit jurors
was MADE by the defendant, and he
moved to quash the panel. After hear
ing argument it is ordered: That the
| panel be quashed upon the ground that
it does not appear upon the face thereof
that any jurors were summoned ac-
cording to law
It is further ordered that the defend
ant, Wade Haines, be recommitted to
the penitentiary to await his trial in
due course of law. II. B. FRASER,
Presiding Judge.
June p, 1891.
Of course this order put an abrupt
termination to the proceedings of the
sessions, and the jurymen drawn fol
/ the week were discharged.
It should be said that the manner IN
| which the return to the writ Of venire
was made by the Sheriff is in accord.
ance with the general practice through
out the State, and it was so stated by
Mr.. Douglass in his argument yester.
day. The printed writ with the affida.
| Wit of service attached is the form used
in all the counties, and it would there
fore appear that numberless juries have
been illegally drawn in this State. This
however, does not at all affect cases
that have been tried 10y such juries, as
the statutes provide that all questions
affecting the legality Of jury must be
raised at the time Of trial, and the
failure to raise them cures any infor'
mality that may have existed.
It had been agreed by the bar that
the trial of cases in the Common Pleas
should commence OH Monday, July g.
and in this arrangement Judge Fraser
has concurred. 1t may be, however,
that this complication as to the juries
may prevent any jury trials at Com
mon Pleas. and that only equity cases