The record-union., 1897-02-09
LANDSBOROUGHIN INDICTMENTS
Judge GaddiS Of Yolo to Determine as
to Their Validity.
why the Defense Contends the
Present Grand Jury is an
Illegal Body.

The matter of determining the valid
fty of the present Grand Jury-and also
OF the indictments returned by that
body against Assemblyman and ex-
Deputy County Clerk L. NJ Landsbor-
cugh-devolves on Superior Judge Cad
dis of \ olo County, who yesterday oc-
cupied the bench in Judge Harris Court.
He is expected to render his decision in
a few days
Landsborough recently attacked the
legality of the Grand Jury, which body
Eis attorneys claim, was not called into
existence by the methods prescribed by
law. Landsborough was in court yes
terday accompanied by his counsel, Hi
ram w. Johnson, A. NJ. Seymour and
Frank S. Sprague. The people were
represented by District Attorney Ryan
and Assistant District Attorney j.
Charles Jones.
The law prescribeS that each year
the Superior Court must designate the
number of citizens to serve as Grand
and trial jurors for the year and that
a list of names of such persons shall be
drawn, written by the Clerk on strips
of paper, and deposited in their respec-
tive boxes After the names of jurors
preserve the ballots containing the
names of persons SO drawn and who
are not exempt from duty, but not
drawn to serve, and replace them in the
box
The defense contended that the record
does not show in detail that all the eX-
cused talesmen We're in court and had
their cases passed on by the Judge;
.1l,.,
Were not complied with; that therefore
the jury is not legal one, and its acts
are void
Members of last years Grand Jury
We're called to testify, and A. Meister,
H. w Bragg, D. w. Taylor, L. l..
Lewis, w. c. Sheldon, S. Lavenson, H.
D. Kerchival, c. A. york, H. K. Wal
lace, NJ. Hanrahan, A. Johnson, Frank
Miller, Julius Everson and Henry Ger
her testified that they were not in
court in December last, when the pres
ent Grand Jury was sworn in, and that
they had not presented any excuses TO
the court. EVerson did not serve on the
Grand Jury of 1896, as he was excused
for illness, and had not since been call
ed on for any excuse from subsequent
service.
Superior Judge Johnson was called
to testify regarding the drawing of the
jury in the spring of 1896 He was
asked if he listed H. K. Grimshaw
among those from whom the jury was
to be drawn He said he had done so,
but the man he intended to list was w
R Grimshaw who lived near Costumes.
The name of Grimshaw was called
when the jury was finally drawn, but
there was no response The man he in
tended to draw afterward came into
the Courthouse and informed the wit
ness that his name was w. r. Grim
shaw, not H. K. Grimshaw.
Judge Johnson said he could not re-
member exactly what was done with
the Grimshaw slip after it was drawn
from the box.
Clerk f. F. Pfund of Judge JOhnson's s
court testified that thirty names were
put in the box, out of which nineteen
We're drawn. The remaining eleven
were handed to County Clerk Hamil-
ton. The witness gave in detail the in
cidents of the drawing and the subse-
Guent attendance of the persons named
in court.
Secretary J. O. Coleman of the pres
borough indictments were returned as
the result Of a report filed by Expert
w. E. Osborn. II was his recollection
that w. d. Haas was sworn TO testify
in respect to the charges. He could
rot remember that w. ]. Ross was ex-
amined as a witness in the charges.
THE ARGUMENTS.
The testimony being closed, A. NJ.
Seymour opened the argument for the
defense He said their objection goes
to the Jurisdiction of the court. They
claimed that the creation of the Grand
Jury was Tot legally effected, and asked
that the indictments against Lands
borough be quashed. The names of all
the witnesses examined before the jury
do not appear Endorsed on the indict-
ments. as required by the code.
Mr.. Seymour then read from the Code
of Civil Procedure describing the meth
cd in which Grand Juries shall be
drawn When a person drawn to serve
on such jury is excused, he said. sat
isfactory evidence must be presented to
the court that the person excused must
be exempt by law.
In this case. counsel contended, jurors
were excused without having claimed
that personal privilege, and one was
excused who was not by law entitled
to exemption.
Juror Grimshaw was on the list. Yet
he was marked excused without any
cause whatever being shown. He was
a competent juror and should not have
been excused.
The next point was that from the
moment the first name was drawn from
the box the proceeding was illegal be-
cause they We're not drawn as required