The morning call., 1891-10-01
MERELY AN ALLEGED GRAND JURY.

ity."
MERELY AN ALLEGED GRAND JURY.
number of cases were cited from the
California Reports in support OF this arsu-
ment ana of the further assertion that he
had the right and power to inv Stigate and
determine upon the validity of the acts of
This alleged Grand jury" under the writ
at issue, even though the body was brought
together under the direction OF the Presiding
Judge.
Proceeding to the second propostion in
yolved, the question Of Judge VILLAGES
method in Obtaining the names of persons
to constitute the Grand Jury, the Judge re-
iterated the opinion that as the jury-bOX
contained the names of IA competent citi-
ZenS, the Judge ordering the Grand Jury
should appeal to the box for persons to
serve as such. and not leave the sele tion to
the Judgment, whim or discretion of any
other person.
OVER 100 NAMES IN THE BOX.
He quoted the code and decisions from
the Supreme Court in support of his CO nten-
ton, referred to the fact that there were
still 119 names in the noX when the esor
was appointed and cited the rules of the
Superior Court regarding the lmpanellng
OF grand jurors drawn up by committee
of four, of whom Judge Wallace was Que.
Continuing he said:
Therefore | assert that the action of the
Presiding Judge in abandoning the Grand
jury DON, uHutI Luc ldtlS utAS DiDNEEis duu
giving the power to psrson who Is under
no official Obligations to 60 out into the
community and summon such persons as he
thought proper, and that those persons SO
summoned by him should nStltu poT-
tion of the Grand Jury, is an Innovation
danger, Us in itself, in conflict with the pol
icy and spirit of our INV, in direct violation
of the decision of our Supreme Court be ore
referred TO, destroying the very rule Of this
court which the l'residlng Judge himself
approved and voted to adopt and which n-
noYation, if followed and recognized, may
result in outrage and injury to innocent
persons"
THE SHERIFF WAS THE PERSON.
The third consideration was tGen taken
up and the legal power of Judge Wallace to
appoint an elisor discussed. The relative
aud respective duties of the Sheriff and
elisor we're defined as stated in the code
and in California decisions, the conclusion
deduced being that unless the Sheriff was
biased and prejudtced and would not act
promptly and impartialy no court or
Judge has the right to ignore the Sheriff or
disQualfy him from performing the duties
enjoned on him by law by the appointment
of an elisOr. In this case 70 showing was
made against the Sheriff stating his want
Of impartality or Tefecting on his integrity.
HOIST WITH HIS OWN PETARD.
Several cases were cited from other States
and from England, and then Judge Murphy
capped the climax by saying;
"NO sounder exposition of the law on
this subject can be found, so far as my
investigation has gone, than the opinion
written by the present Presiding Judge of
this court when he held the exalted position
of Chief Justice Of the Supreme Court OF
this State"
Judge Murphy then quoted at length from
Judge Walace's decision in the case OF the
People VS.. Southwell.
AS result Of the cases quoted his Honor
said he was convinced that Judge Wallace
had no right or authority to appoint Henry