The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1891-05-08
ner's argument was to close the matter.
Pending . decision OF Mr.. Howard's OBJ
lection, court adjourned till Up. m.
kNENING SESSION.

PENDING decision OF Mf. HowArd's ol
lection, court adjourned till Up. IN.
LYBNING SESSION.
Mr.. Belle Convsiiation with Mr.. YounI
An Interesting Incident.
At the opening, Colonel Arnett ad
dressed the court, saying that the de
fsnse held that when the Supreme Cour
OF this State, or of the State of virginil
before the formation Of this State, haC
rendered decisions that settled matter
OF law, 1t was obligatory upon the lower
courts until such time that the Supreme
Court Teverses itself. These decisions
in other States are presented merely as
arguments, but when decision Is made
by the Supreme Court OF this State, It Is
hnal. Colonel Arnett held that when a
State adopts O statute Of another State Il
must adopt with 1t the decisions OF
courts upon that statute. Colonel Ar.
nett then read from Grattan's report OF
the opinion OF Judge Moncure 70 sup.
port his position, holding that when q
statute that supplements common law is
repealed, the provisions Of common law
have the same force as II the act had
never existed. Colonel Arnett held that
all decisions were In effect that BerYice
upon Jury Is not q privilege to the cit.
iZen, but burden imposed. On one
side there is no ground for objection be.
cause the juror has been relieved OF a
duty Of citizenship, and on the other
that he may not take umbrage because
the person 80 relieved chooses 10 accept
that relief, and refuses to further bear
that burden. The Colonel stated that
the reason one under tWenty.one could
not be Juror Is because he has not and
and never has had any OF the privileges
OF citizenship, and has never beon a cit
izen under the common law. A man
who has passed the age Of sixty years,
has had and borne the duties Of citizen.
ship, and Is in no wise disqualified from
enjoying any OF those privileges.
THE STATE OPPOSES.
Mr.. Howard spoke for the State. He
read decision from the reports of Rhode
Island giving definition Of the word
liable, tending to show that all who are
qualified are not liable. The argument
also went 10 state that Jury duty was
duty and not privilege Of citizenship,
and that II bad always been 60 conaider.
ed in that State. Mr.. Howard held that
in the Virginia case, it was the prisoner
raising the point that a man past sixty
had served upon the jury, while here
the prisoner Is in the unheRrd OF and
unparalleled position Of maintaining
that man past sixty shall sit upon the
jury. Even II a man has qualified and is |
Bittingupon the panel the prisoner hasn no
reason for demanding his retention. No
man has right to select, and the right
to reject is not the right to select, That
the prisoner is 10 be tried by fair and |
impartial jury is all the right he has.
He should not have the right to say who |
shall sit upon that jury, but he may say !
who shall not sit there. The court may
dismiss any juror, 30 that the court
in his place another man who |
is fair and impartial. No juror has any
vested right in tho matter. 1t is not q |
right, but duty imposed, and 1t lies
entirely with the court, aud the court |
may dismiss or hold asitplessess so longsB
there are no diequaliiying circumstances
The fact that 9 man is past sixty years
old is disqualifying circumstance, and |
the State asks that the court set these
Jurors aside.
MAN OVER SIXTY RLIGIBLE.
The court said that 1t had not had
time to make perfect examination OF
authorities. There is some conflict in !
the elementary authorities. The case
cited in Grattan sixteen, the syllabus
says that persons over sixty are not dis.
qualified, but are merely exempted.
Our law is substantially the same as
that except that the words white free"
have been omitted, as is necessary under
the new constitutional conditions.
Being under twenty.one years OF age
1isQualifes persons because they are not |
legal men, but being men over sixty
Lhey are legal citizens and are not dis.
qualified. Section 2 Of chapter llO
means to show and interpret who the
Legislature meant should be exempted |
from Jury duty. It seems that the ex-
preston exempted means not q ditqual.
ifcstion but privilege. Eomestates,
Indiana and Miesissippi, the age
OF sixty years is grounds for challenge,
while in come states 1t Is a ground for
exemption, but not for challenge. The |
court said 1t was inclined to the view
that in striking out the affirmation Of
qualification in the statute, and on &C.
count OF the decision Of the Virginia
case reported in sixteen Grattan, he
would give the prisoner the benefit Of
any doubt and oveuule the motion to
diemiss those jurors who are sixty years
old or over.
FINAL RIANISATIoH.
The panel was then brought in and