The record-union., 1896-07-18
THE DECISION.

Inc u0Ic1udHI III ILLS case 40 aSCuoCN
OF the crime of libel in having published
concerning the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Sacramento, certain
defamatory article rejecting upon the
| integrity of the said Supervisors, as
public officials. This publication was
made in the final report of the last
Grand Jury of the County Of Sacramen-
| to. The defendant was the Foreman
of that Grand Jury, and the report was
| signed by him In his official capacity as
Foreman and by the Secretary thereof.
After the prosecution had rested the
defendant moved for dismissal and
asks that this dismissal be made upon
| the ground that Grand Juror is ex-
empt from liability for anything that he
may do while acting as such official.
The testimony Of the County Clerk in
relation to the alleged libelous matter
shows that the report was written by
the Grand Jury prior to their discharge
and while the members thereof were
acting in their official capacity, and that
the report was handed to Judge of the
Superior Court prior to their discharge
and while they were yet acting as such
officials.
Inc InOIlOu HAS Dct.ll t1dDOIdttly al
gued. have listened with the greatest
attention to all that has been said by
counsel, and have myself made such in
vestigation as was possible. 1t seems
to me from the authorities that have
been cited, and from the Investigations
have made, that 1t was the intention
Of our Legislature to exempt from both
civil and criminal liability aGrand Juror
acting within the purview of his author
ity. That this was the intention Of
our Legislature seems to me to be evil
denced by Section 927 Of our Penal Code,
which provides that Grand Juror can
not be questioned for anything that he
may say, or any vote he may give in
the Grand Jury relating to a matter le-
gally pending before the jury.
'sThis section OF the Penal Code, which
I might remark is simply the statutory
expression of the common law, has been
construed by the Supreme Court Of this
State in the case of Turpin vs.. Booth,
80 Cal, So, and was there held in ref
erence to a civil action, to mean that a
Grand Juror was exempt from liability
! for anything that he might do as such
Grand Juror within his jurisdiction.
independently of the authorities and
| independently of the question of whe-
| ther or not q report must be filed by the
| Grand Jury, think the code provision
cited Is sufficient to relieve the defend
ant in this case from civil or criminal
| liability In the matter of report, how
ever, it is specifically provided by Sec
ton 92S Of the Penal Code that a report
must be filed after a careful examina-
ton of the records, books and accounts
of the officials Of the county.
What is pertinent to be contained IN
this report do not now pretend to say;
but a. report is required by law. In this
instance report was filed by the Grand
Jury. The Grand Jury did have juris-
dlction of the matter reported upon, and
I believe that the Grand Jury. having
acted within its jurisdiction, cannot be
held either civilly or crininally liable.
| For that reason / ann compelled &c
grant the motion. I desire to say, now
ever. before officially entering the order
dismissing this case, that l believe II
to be a reprehensible practice on the
part of Grand Jury to attack the rep
utation of any official or any citizen
wantonly. I believe that Grand jury