Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-04-21

ton for felony; second: a want Of
any of the qualifications prescribed
By law for juror, and; third, un-
soundness OF mind or such defect in
the faculties of the mind, or organs
of the body. as renders him Incapa-
BILE of performing the duties Of a
juror; and the particular causes OF
challenge are for actual or implied
bias. L. o. L. Sections 117-123.
These provisions Of the code so par
ticularly delimit objections to jurors
as to exclude almost every quasi judi
cial feature from the duty of the
sheriff in summoning talesmen. The
mere act Of delivering notice is pure
ly ministerial and it might we'll hap
pen that the sheriff himself desig-
mated the citizens of the county to be
summoned and directed his deputies
or, for that matter, any one else, to
hand the statutory notice to those
selected. There is nothing in the OBJ
jectlons of the defendant as reported
in the bill of exceptions to exclude
this hypothesis. There is no charge
that the sheriff acted otherwise than
fairly in the discharge of his duty
We must presume that his official
duty was regularly performed. The
end to be attained Is an impartial
jury and this is finally determined
by the examination of the men them
selves under the sanction of the
court at the trial of the cause. The
result is not affected by the question
Of whether or not the sheriff in per-
son or his deputy delivered the no.
tice to the jurors under consideration.
The manner in which they were
served constitutes the only objection
urged by defendant to 10 of the jur-
ors participating in the verdict and
in the absence of any showing Of
partiality in the action of the sheriff
there is no merit in that objection.
Except for the order in which the
court required the parties to exer-
else their peremptory challenges the
dispute about the formation Of the
jury is narrowed to a consideration
of the rulings on the eligibility Of
the last three jurors examined.
With but one peremptory challenge
left the name Of ]. W. Allen was
drawn from the box. He testified
that he served "a year ago this
spring" on the jury in that court, but
did not know when he was dis
charged, The trial began June 90
1910. The statute says that 1t is a
sufficient cause of challenge If a
Juror has been summoned and at
tended as such at any term held
within one year prior to challenges
L. o. L., Sec. $50, sub. 4. "a year
ago this spring" would be more than
one year prior to the beginning oi
the trial and there is not enough In
the record to raise the question or
that ground of challenge, Allen fur.
ther testified that he was not ac
quainted with any Of the defendants
that he had read the account of thC
killing of Snyder, had heard 1t dis
cussed some but not to any great eX
tent; that he sometimes took part II
the conversations and had expressed
his opinion in those conversations
He had heard some of what purport
ed to be the facts developed in the
trial of Hinton and from what he hat
heard he had formed and expressed
a fixed opinion as to the guilt Of the
defendant Caseday at the present
time which it would require sworr
testimony to remove. He stated
however, substantiallyttha he coult
! lay aside his estimate of the case ant