The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-11-15
THE PERSONAL LIBERTY OF
VIIISREng

The famous Haywood and Pettibone
trials in Idaho were trasical and seri-
Gus enough in themselves. but they
have nevertheless furnished an anus.
Ing aftermath. Both OF these trials
Were long, and the juries were kept
together for two months in one case
and about one month in the other Az
ter the trials had been concluded a
firm OF BARRIERS in Boise City sent to
the board OF commissioners of Ada
county a bill for ss166 for their SER
vices In shaving and cutting the hair
Of the Jurors who served in these two
cases. The tonsorial services were
rendered upon the order OF the trial
Judge, but the commissioners refused
to honor the bill. saying that they had
no warrant in law for SO doing. An
appeal was taken to the District Court,
and the commissioners were ordered to
pay the BILL The board appealed to
the Supreme Court, and was sustained.
The court decided that the expense In
Cured was mot necessary incident
in the administration of Justice and
was properly disallowed." The result
is that the jurymen Will have to pay
the bill out of their personal funds.
and that in the matter Of free shayes
and hair-cuts the State refuses to be
| paternalistic.
| The decisions In this case have an
undercurrent of humor that is delight
full. The counsel for the BARRIERS in
sisted that from the viewpoint Of com
fort and sanitation it was necessary
that the jurors be shaved and their hair
cut. In referring to this, the opinion
says:
/ There Is nothing peculiar or special
! about jury service that viii cause
whiskers and hair to grow. If the
Jurors had been at home or elsewhere,
about their business in their usual yoca-
tons, 1t would have been just as neces-
sary for them to have shaved them
selves or have gone to barber for
4 this service as It was for them to have
the service while serving on juries"
Judge Stewart wrote the dissenting
opinion, taking the ground that the
personal attention of Jurors and their
| sanitary wants are iildllef VI priHo
Importance and within the inherent
power Of the court for which to incur
expense.
The juror is at liberty at home and
at his place of business to shave him
self, select his own barber and have his
beard and hair. clipped at viii; while 1t
perhaps grew no faster during conhne-
ment than when at liberty, yet his
I %o,. IN rrt-r to
denied while in confinement. The law
has taken possession of him, denied his
right to stop the growth of his hair
and whiskers. The law is responsible
for the growth. The majority opinion
seems to hold that the claim of the
respondent Is parallel to claim for
laundry or clothing furnished a jury;
but to my mind, the cases are not
81 parallel or in any way similar. The
Juror may send his linen or have it
Numbered and returned and again use
/, it; but / am not advised of any pro-
cess by which a juror could send to
the barber shop his whiskers or hair
and have them properly groomed and
returned and placed in position for
further use:",
This case is rather remarkable. for
there are very few cases on record
similar in principle, and there are none
Identical with 1t on the facts. Indeed.
n we are told that where no specific sta
tute directs, the jurors shall be lodged
t and boarded at the county's expense,
there Is conflict whether the Judge
can order such a thing to be done.
The weight OF authority Is that the
Judge has this inherent power, how
ever. 1t is almost a case of legal hair
. splitting.