The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-01-27
SUPREME G0UR1'
ISEALSHM'C!.U|.E|
pQQMlA.E0RI..[!:!y!.!E:.R!!!!
I(contlnued from First Paye.l K ar


is no suth printice Hin the courts ~ y Ms
State as an absolute right ct appe!aa n IS
Ri ,S Tho court cosislders eBi,ecl al ma lnA
four exe ~ tion y
relied on THO iifst r ~
As rs eSeiigbility of Grand Juror ~
mai, and tbs corrnctness o tho metho a
employed tby tho trial court TO ascertain
HE eligibility. rho second ls ag Eto. the
eligibility 81 Trlnl Juror j q 81 kdell
upon Ills stntettiorts made ut the time 81
hls examination ns TO I'LL = y
third Is as TO the impeachr1e n Y py .tH Ne
/ Comnonw OF ness summoned y III "
IN til behalf, had upon notice IN horeoi.
The fourth and last of the principal az. 4.
certiot1s q d to the action ~ the court "
III, permit ting Jurors to read news per,
&,The 81 Al ltofient Il Of {S Cap min AT NJ lea jah
SYoods,sDf counsel for The prosccn on
that he had refused d fec 10 defend tho
accused, slid statement being made bee .'
fore THE Jury, Is also dealt wth9n q some g ~
lsngt 81 s.5 /. !. !, 4,
tss Sustains Judge M orris. q
tsaS rho court sustains Judge Norris IN his
action III impanellng q jury and + sub y:
S1itting Is it the question OF IN t IN 7 +
svol Ved e II, h tho matter OF Grand JUROR
Lymar's eligibility, dcclalr ring t thls t.ie
u proper pr durc Z. h. 4, Z.
? the fnaLter8OL&tH teAi ~. 4
Juror Sstockdell the court he Ids that ne
was not ineligible by reason, Of having YIN
5rcad 5ne wspaperr reports OF e ldence IN
Sfhe % prior to / tho trial. ~ The court
Ii Wna impressed With his fairness and his
sgdesirc Is deal Justly with the prisoner
ana with This consclenti ous N purpos Z 20
discharge Ills dut 4 as q q ,r q e
court holds that the trend Of recent sdec 81
u sions Of, the question: "a is In tnc
a.
ling the disnuall flcat Ion OF Jurors by req
3 son of me re opinion. The declaration OF
4 ina court upon this quest Ion is worthy OF.
4 prominencea Interviewing this opinion. i
,srhe State strains eve ry norve TO dis
Il scrnlnate knowledge. BY the diffusion Of
A education { hopes to create O. MS herss
+ citizcnshlpj and Ito ind the means q re-
Il pressing vice and crime !; but q q the courts
m AXE an extrefne positi on 4 his subject
and hold that every @ pinion shat worK.
4 disqualification for service as d Juror,
tho administration Of Justice will be con-;
&Hded, not to tho most Intelligent, but to
"A The most Ignorant Of our eli izens. AZ
VIZ ALI 10 the u exception regarding the im-S
y parchment OF its own wi ttless. the court
cites as authority Therefor Il sect ion 1851
v 81 the IA OTIS OF Assembly 1904 and holds
that FMS the absence OF ian guage Epecif II
to civil Ca ses. applies equal TO crin,i-
nal cases. This statute, VI ding - the
Il court warrants the action OF the (trial)i
" court 4 III this case. RI: s ,s{ 81
n III dealing Wit the exception with ref
arcnce toGpermitting the Jurors to read
i1, ewspapers the \ court holds that the
counsel for the prisoner and the prisoner
himself, f as well 4 as I he counsel for the
prosecution, heard the request made, and
ftoftered no bjection, and tina the court,
q BY n tactt If consent OF counsel. Il permitted
& the Jurors to read newspapers with the
S specific promise that they were to read
nothing relating to & the tria 1. E On this
II point tho court says Sof tho tardy objec-l
Il ton {of counsel Il that rs III tigants are not
II allowed TO play fast and loose with the
court. II II they are silent H when It Is
& their duty u 10 speak. they a re not per-
United ITO peak VIII on Il "a their duty
TO keep silent n,
h. The court s!,staIns the 4 action q Cap
tltatrrss NJ oods, associate counsel II for he
prosecution. In defending Himself from
the gcriticisms8o the counsel for the de-
4 PENDANT. III Says sJud ge3 Ike tn, on this point.
itswould he a strange thing & counsel for
4 the accused were permitted to crit else
Opposing council, 81 and that the latter;
should be obliged 10 submit IN silence
under the penalty we are asked to Inns
pose in this ca Sc.