Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1904-06-29
STATE vs.. PINE
Continued from first page.

adopted this language from the
opinion of Mr.. Justice Parker in
Robinson s case, 2 Parker's Grim.
Cas-. 235, 3OS, 81, decided by the
Supreme court of New York, a
case in which the irregularity re-
lied upon was the want of pre-
cept for summoning the grand
jury which had found the indict-
ment corresponding to our venire
facias.
That the trial court may, in the
exercise of sound discretion, re-
fuse to allow the plea in bar, to be
withdrawn, seems to have been
the opinion of the judges of this
court when State VS.. Stanley, %
w. Va. SIG was decided, for Judge
Holt cited many authorities to
that effect, among which are
Paltee VS.. State, 100 Ind. 545; Peo-
pie VS.. Lee, II Col. 76; Phillips VS..
People, So Ill. 429; Com. VS.. Ma
honey, 115 Mass. Isl.
1t is not deemed material that
the plea of not guilty had not
been actaully spread upon the or
der book when the dilatory pleas
were rendered, even if that could
be shown by affidavit. 1t had been
in fact put in and issue made upon
it. Nor is it of any consequence
that the court allowed pleas l, and
2, to be filed and then sustained
demurrers to them. They were re-
jected and the existence of the
plea in bar was I sufficient reason
for so doing, whatever other rea-
son the court may have found for
it's action.
A motion in arrest of judgment
was founded upon the failure Of
the record to show that a venire
facias had been issued for sum-
moning the grand jury. The au-
thorities already cited, amply sus-
tain the action Of the Court in ov-
er-ruling that motion.
Upon some objection, the panel
Of petit jurors regularly drawn for
the term of court at which the
case was tried, had been quash-
ed and the names of forty-six
other jurors drawn from the box
in the presence of the Court pursu-
ant to an order so directing and
reciting that such other jurors
were necessary for the convenient
dispatch of the business of the
term. A motion to quash the new
panel was over-ruled and this &C
ton of the Court is said to have
been erroneous. By its terms,
Sec. IA of Chap. 116 of the Code of
1899, is broad enough to confer
upon the Court the power to
cause a new jury to be summoned
under such circumstances. 1t
does not say additional jurors
may be so summoned, but that
"other Jurors" may be drawn by
the clerk, ETC., whenever it shall
be found necessary for the con-
venient dispatch of business. ="
This section is applicable to GRIM
inal cases State VS.. Mills, 80 w.
Va. 455. 1t would be very mar
row construction of this statute,
falling far short of the broad
terms used, to say a new jury can
not be drawn and summoned I'M
der it, when for some irregrtlarity,
the panel is quashed and thus de-
lay the trials of all cases on the
docket, until a subsequent regular
or special term, thus subjecting
parties to useless expense and
trouble.
A number of exceptions were
taken to the rulings of the Court
upon the evidence of G. w. Grier,
the Mayor. He admitted the gen
uineness of his signature upon the
order, but said he could not re-
member the act of signing his
name to the order, nor the place
at which it was done. He further
testified that from the appearance
of the order, it had been altered
after he signed it, and also that
when signed by him it could not
have been for so large an amount,
as it was his custom and practice
to look at the amounts of the or
ders presented to him by the clerk
for his signature, and if the order