Evening star., 1902-01-21
Arguments Before the District Court
Of Appeals Today.
DECISION EXPECTED TUESDAY next
The Points Made by Counsel in
Case of William Clark.
TEST UNDER THE NEW CODE

The Court of Appeals today heard argu-
ments in the case brought to test the ques-
tion as to the legality of the juries i'm
paneled for service during the present
month in the local courts It is thought
that a decision will not be handed down
prior to next Tuesday. The title Of the test
case is William Clark, appellant, against
the United States" The appellant is rep
resented by Attorneys r. Ross Perry G.
Son and Lambert & Baker, while United
States Attorney Gould and Assistant
United States Attorney Gordon appear for
the government. The argument was opened
by Mr.. Baker. Mr.. Gould follower and Mr..
Perry, ST., closed.
The cause reached the Court of Appeals
on special appeal The appellant, William
Clark, was indicted the 10th instant in the
Supreme Court of the District of Colum
bia for larceny from the person. He was
arraigned and filed a plea in abatement,
which alleges that the indictment against
him was not found by legally constituted
grand jury, but by an Illegally summoned
and impaneled body of persons pretending
to act as such; that the persons purporting
to constitute the grand jury were sum
moned without any authority of law by the
marshal Of the District of Columbia, the
23d Of December, 1901, the summons being
issued by the clerk of the Supreme Court
OF the District Of Columbia under the pre-
tended authority of several acts of Con-
gress, which ceased to be the law of the
District the 31st Of December, 1901; that
the summons commanded the persons to ap-
pear in Criminal Court No. the 7th in
slant. on which day there was in effect
certain act of Congress entitled "An act
to establish code of law for the District
of Columbia, and that the persons were
examined as to their qualifications under
the law that had no existence, so it Is
claimed, at the time they were so exam
ined, and that on the Sth instant the per-
sons were sworn to act as a grand jury
for the January term Of the court; that the
ity of a certain joint resolution of Con-
gress which was signed by the President
of the United States the afternoon of the
Sth instant. For these reasons the appe-
lant prayed judgment Of the indictment
and asked that the same be quashed, and
that he be dismissed by the court.
Demurrer Filed.
To this plea in abatement was filed a gen.
eral demurrer on the part Of the United
States, in which Is stated the point of law
to be argued in support Of the demurrer, as
follows:
THAT the joint resolution mentioned in
said plea gives validity to the summoning
and qualifying of the grand jury mentioned
in said plea and that said grand jury is a
legally constituted grand jury having juris-
olctlon of the offense and of the person Of
the defendant"
The demurrer was heard, and Justice
Anderson, in Criminal Court No. l, sus-
tained the demurrer, and Immediately there
after the Court of Appeals granted the spe-
cial appeal.
Citation of Errors.
According to counsel for the appellant,
Justice Anderson erred In sustaining the
demurrer to the plea in abatement and hold
Ing that the body of men that indicted the
appellant constituted a valid grand jury
and had the qualifications required by law
at the time the Indictment was found; in
holding that the body of men summoned to
act as grand jury was such, because the
law under which they were summoned was
repealed before they appeared; in holding
that 1t had Jurisdiction to impanel a grand
jury, when at the time it did so the per-
sons summoned to constitute the grand
jury were not summoned in accordance
with any law in effect at the time; in hold
ing that it had jurisdiction to examine the
persons summoned and to impanel them into
a grand jury, when at the time there was
no law giving them any such authority; in
examining the persons summoned and re-
quiring of them the qualifications under a
law that had no existence at the time they
were so examined; in holding that the grand
jury which indicted the appellant was a
legally constituted grand jury, when such
grand jury had not the qualifications
Quired by the law which was in existence
at the time they were impanefea in hold
ing that it had authority to examine and
impanel such grand jury by virtue of a GER
tain joint resolution of Congress which was
passed after the time that the court ex-
amined and impaneled such grand jury and
in holding that the joint resolution of Con-
gress ratified and confirmed the Illegal jury
impaneled by the court.
Change in Jury Law.
1t was argued by counsel for the appel
liant, among other things, that jury under
the code is an entirely differently consti-
tuted body of men than jury under the
old law; different persons constitute the
jury commissioners; the proceedings in
drawing are somewhat different, and the
qualifications of juror under the code are
entirely different from the qualifications re-
quired by the old law. 1t was also pointed
out that the plea in abatement shows that
the grand jurors who were interrogated as
to their qualifications were interrogated as
old law, and not as to the quail
ifications required by the code which
was in effect at the time that they
were examined; SO that, it was contended,
Independent of the question of the right Of
these persons to appear in court and be ex-
amined, the appellant was confronted by a
body of men who had not the qualifications
required by the law to constitute the grand
jury On the udy on WINCH ne was lnQ1cteQ.
Effect of Repeal.
Counsel next discussed the effect of the
repeating of the old jury act by the CODE
1t was maintained that when the act that
repealed the original act went into effect
everything that was pending fell with the
old law, and that the court had no further
Jurisdiction over any matter that was not
fully concluded, unless there was a saving
clause in the statute. In the code there are
several clauses which preserve certain
rights and save suits pending, but nowhere
1t was declared, is there any attempt to
give the Supreme Cou of the District of
Columbia authority to law grand fury
other than according to the provisions Of
the code, or authority for the grand Jury