Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-03-21
JURY WAS A LEGAL ONE.
Supreme Court Says NOyeS and Elliott Must

Supreme Court Says NOyeS and Elliott MUST
Stand Trial Under the Indictments.
MADISON, Wis, March 16.--The SUI
preme court to-day decided that Eu-
gene S. Elliott and F. w. Noyes, the
indicted directors of the Plankinton
Bank, must stand trial. They had been
released on writ Of habeas corpus
issued by Judge Johnson. The supreme
court reverses the order of the cir cult
Judge and the cause is remanded with
directions to remand the defendants
to the custody of the sheriff of Milwau-
kee County.
The case is entitled, estate of Wiscon-
sin Elk. rel, plaintiff in error vs. Francis
w. Noyes and Eugene S. Elliott, de-
PENDANTS in error" The proceeding is
brought before the supreme court on a
common law writ of certiorari to review
the proceedings in habeas corpus
of Judge Johnson, of the circuit
court of Milwaukee County, by which
the defendants in error were discharged
from imprisonment. On the last day Of
the October term of the municipal court
of Milwaukee County, 1898, the grand
jury of that courtfound and returned true
bills of Indictment against the defend
ants and four others under section 4541
r. S., for having fraudulently received
deposits as directors of the PlankintOn
Bank OF Milwaukee, knowing at the
time the bank to be insol-
vent. The defendants were detained
by virtue of commitments on failure to
enter any recOgnizanceS issued out Of
the municipal court after their arraign-
ment and pleas Of not guilty. They
then brought habeas corpus proceedings
before the circuit court and were dis
charged on the ground that the grand
jury was not acting in accordance with
law, and therefore the municipal court
uId not have Jurisdiction.
The decision of the supreme court is
by Chief Justice orion. After review
ing the case the Court says:
In reason and by analogy q person under
an indictment, seeking his discharge on
habeas corpus has the same right to
allege that the Judge or clerk
is not lawfully judge or a
clerk as that the grand jury is not
a legal grand jury. The several members of
the grand jury are officers of the court and
their acts should be protected on the same
| principle that they are detactO jurors. 1t
would put an end to judicial proceedings
legal Jitle and qualifications of ali judicial
officers could be contested in collateral pro-
ceedings at the instance of aggrieyed par
ties. This is very i'm poftant question and
q new one in this conW. We have cited all
the cases at hand, and from the higher
character of the courts they ought
TO be considered not only satisfactory
but sufficiently. especially when based
upon such cogent and conclusive reasons.
We hold, therefore, that the indictments
found against the defendants are not void
but good and valid indictments, so fH as
this collateral proceedings is concerned,
because found by grand jury acting under
color of lawful authority and q good and
sufficient grand jury detacto. 1t follows
had jurisdiction to issue the writ by which
the defendants were arrested and the conn.,
nitments upon which they were impris
oned, and therefore the judge of the circuit
court had no cOgniZanca of the cases to dis
Tl,o ~, Il do,