Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-10-15

| About Seven or Eight Thousand
Pleas Must Be Submitted The
Reason for This Demand by the
States Representatives. AbOut
81, 800 in Fees Will Be- Collected.
A Strong Argument by Hon. John
A. Howard.
In the Criminal Court, Judge Hugus,
yesterday. in the cases OF State v.
| John Arthur and others, indicted for
misdemeanors by the late grand jury,
the list FROM which said jury was
drawn having been held to, be Illegal
! by the Court, there was 2. partial ar
gument of counsel for the defense,
and, upon the demand of the represen-
tatives Of the State, the defense was
| required to file pleas in abatement in
+ every indictment These indictments,
in which there is an appearance by
Hon. John A. Howard and Hon. S.
G. Srlith, for defense, are over five
hundred in number, and as result at
least five hundred times fifteen pleas
will have to be filed, or about seven
thousand five hundred pleas in all. To
do this, the defense is given until Sat-
urday morning.
| The Clerk of the Court is en-
titled to twenty-five cents for every
| plea, and the sum thus made secure
for him will approximate two thous-
and dollars. If the defense wins, this
amount of money will have to be paid
by the public of Ohio county. If the
State wins, it will have to be paid by
| the defendants. In any event the
Clerk will get it.
The matter came up before Judge
| Hugus, yesterday morning, in the case
of State V. John Arthur, Indictment
No. l. Mr.. Howard, who was to open
the argument for the defense, made a
somewhat lengthy address to the
| Court, on the issues raised, in the
course of which he cited the following
authorities as bearing upon the points
at issue
! Some of the States providing that the
| work of a grand jury is not to be Vltlated
| by mere technical departure from statu-
! tory requirement in selecting and impan-
| cling the grand jury; West Virginia has
| no such statute and our legislature has
considered the question and enacted such
| a statute as to the personal disqualified
| ton of any individual on the grand jury,
that is any of the jurors: (Sec. H. CHI Isl
| Code) Thompson VS.. Merriman, Jurfes,
| 122.
Strong personal bias on the part of the
| person drawing the jury may be cause for
Challenge to array. State VS.. McSsalze, .
When duty to draw grand jury is dele
| gated to another person by the person
| whose duty it is, the grand jury. is not
| legally constituted and its work is void.
| Thompson VS.. Merriman, Juries lis. State
VS.. Newhouse, 20 La. An, S24.
| When the Court had statutory authori-
| jurors, and did so, when the sheriff might
| have summoned them, the grand jury was
held he'll to be illegal and the Indictment void.
| Bruner VS.. State, 80 Cal. 239-24S.
When record failed to show that fore
man of grand jury was sworn, although it
! did show he was appointed foreman, in
| dlctment held Invalid, and jury not a con-
stitutional grand jury. Roe. VS.. State, 2
| So. Rep. 459.
When it was duty of sheriff to COM
pare ballots with list and deputy sheriff
! qld 1t, held that it was not q valid grand
| jury and the Indictment void, and this in
| Iowa, where the statute provides that the
| Court should not consider mere technical
| errors (which do not affect the substantial
| rights of the parties. Brant vs.. State, Il
| Iowa. 593-600
Court can only excuse a joror when he
has been called and placed in the box.
! Any excuse before is without authority.
! thompson VS.. State 10 Tex. APP. 593-611
| W men grand jury is not selected as re-
CURED by law, an indictment is null and
| VOID: Whitehead VS.. Com, 10 Graf, 64O
When statute required sheriff to sum
/ mon ~, and the Court to select not more
imam Is of them, when 10 were selected.
ned the grand jury was not legally con-
| stltuted and the Indictment void Miller
VS.. State SO Miss, $50
! Sheriff and jury commissioners failed
to place their distinct seals on jury box, -
J held fatal defect. Brown vs. Common
| wealth, 70 Pa. Stat. 500.
Grand jury must be drawn and empan-
| elled in accordance with the directions of
the statute. PARTS VS.. State, ETC., %
= If sheriff can serve and coroner is or
dered by Court to summon jury held
jury bad. People VS. SouthweII, 46 Cal,
Grand jury must be selected in mode
prescribed by law. Waiter VS.. State, 4th
Statute provided grand jurors can only
serve for one year. Jury held bad when
| served over a year Barger and others VS..
| State, 4 Blackboard 1888
A list OF persons made by other per-
sons than those authorized by law or in
| a dtferent manner than prescribed by law
is not a grand jury though drawn from
such list. Clare VS.. State, 80 Nd, 1914. etc.
PROVISIONS of statute for selecting and
empanelling grand juries must be strictly
! or at least substantially observed or the
! jury is not legally constituted and tba
| indictment is void 'Ai
Other important eases in point are Doyle
Us State, 18th Ohio Stat, 222: a case in
A Am. st, Rep, So; see also on these sew v
9rai questions. "a Ark, 70; q Ark. 1888; !
Port; Ala, 1870; "a Ala. So: 81 Ala. IN
65 Ala, 40; 3 Ney. 20; ? South (N. j.. 459;
IA Wis, 500; 20 Ga An. 356-442. |' ~
In the course of his remarks to the
Court after citing the Virginia case,
IN Grattan, MIR. Howard also jcited an
Irish case in which O'Conneu appeared.
and supplemented this by the claim that
when the Legislature provides specific
ally for the drawing of the grand Jury.
a departure from the statutory provis-