The Saint Paul globe., 1896-12-06
'oD"E bHiLL CALLED UPON FOR
ANOTHER OPINION ON THE
ENACTMENT
ABOUT THE SHERlFF's WORK.
CLAIMED HE CANNOT PRIVATELY
MAKE UP THE LIST TO BE
DRAWN.
MUST SELECT ONE AT A TIME
nat I'm the Presence of the At
torneys-Court Considering the
Point.

Sheriff Chapels Interpretation of tho
struck jury law was attacked in tbe
special term of the district court YES
terday by Attorneys Townley and
O'Brien, who argued motions in two
cases to. quash struck juries. on the
gound that the list of names from
which the jurors are chosen were NOT
prepared in the presence Of the parties
TO the action. In the cases at issue the
Jurles We're struck at noon Nov. 20.
when the lists of names were nresantod
70 the attorneys for the litigants al
ready made up for the Striking nro-
cess 1t was objected to at the time
enat the lists should have been select
ed, name by name, in the presence of
the attorneys, instead of having been
made up by the sheriff at another time.
ana presented as whole on the day
IN question. Notwithstanding the OBJ
lection, the juries were drawn and the
motion to quash followed
The question at issue is merely ono
OF law, and is to determine whether the
sheriff can privately make up the lists
from which the jury is to be chosen
and at the time specified present them
as a whole to the parties suing, this
bI1G SS1SCIlOn contemplated
by the law, or whether he must com
pile the lists name by name from the
city directory, while the parties are
present and witnessing the process. The
latter Interpretation means great deal
or work and loss of time for the sheriff
IN instances where several juries are to
be struck on the same day, as a list
of forty names must be selected in each
ease and cannot be done with the ex-
pedition possible under the custom now
observed of preparing the lists ahead
The day on which the juries were Sc
lected, which it is moved to auash,
| there were seven juries chosen, neces-
stating the compilation of 470 names,
which, under the view taken in support
of the arguments presented in favor
Of the motion, would have constituted
an all days task in itself.
The cases in whose interests the mo-
tions were made are those of Charles
D. Martin VS.. W. H. Mcdonald ct al,
and Ellen Rush, for Phillip Rush, VS..
The City Railway Company. Attorneys
Townley and o 'Brien, representing the
plaintiffs, urged a literal interpreta-
tion Of the law, and insisted in argu-
ment that each name on the jury list
must be selected in the presence Of
the interested parties. and that the full
list could not be made up by the sheriff
at another time and presented within
the meaning of the law. For the de-
PENDANTS the argument was not close
ly confined to the manner in which the
juries had been selected, but was based
on the fact that all rights in the prem
ises regarding the illegalfty of the
juries had been waived by opposing
counsel when they failed to stand by
the objections entered when the lists
were originally shown them. 1t was
claimed by engaging in striking" the
lists afterwards that they had com
piled with the law, and that the juries
as now constituted were correctly and
legally chosen, and should be allowed
to stand.
Judge Brill, before whom the argu-
ment was made took the matter un-
der consideration