Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1912-02-08
Attorneys for the Respondent
Contend Jurors We're Not
Legally Summoned.
BEFORE SUPREME COURT
Question Apparently Hinges on
Interpretation of Two Se'c-
tions of the Revised
Statutes.

Montpelier. Feb In supreme court
this morning arguments were continued
In the Essex county case of Willard vs.
Norcross. Judge Watson sat with the
court a short time but did not remain
for the entire session.
Attorney Simonds requested that entries
of discontinuance he made in the
Caledonia county cases or Charles =.
Smith VS.. Ted W. Goehie and Joseph
Sicord and Peter Sicord W.. Fred Gilman
and Daniel Gilman.
The case of state against Arthur Bos-
worth. Chittenden county. was then
begun, A. l.. Sherman and Sherman 4.
Moulton appearing for the respondent and
States Attorney H. b. Shaw of Burling
ton and Attorney General j. c. Sargent
for the State.
Bosworth was found guilty of murder
in the first degree with capital punish
mcnt at the September term of Chitten-
den county court. being convicted of the
murder of Miss Mas Labele at Essex
junction. The defense was insanity A
motion to set aside the verdict was fled
in November and the motion overrliled.
The case went to supreme court on
exceptions.
Mr.. Sherman began his argument for
the respondent. the first question raised
being the method of empaneling the jury.
After the regular panel was exhausted
others were called jurors To try the
particular case and the contention is that
these were not qualified or legally sum
moned, having been selected 10y the sher-
ff in advance for the particular case to
be heard.
STRONG FEELING AT ESSEN.
Here was u murder at Essex June
tion." said MIR. Sherman, "and the sher-
If resides at Essex. | have no criticism
to make of the sheriff. 1t was most
brutal killing No one questions that
and there was strong feeling there which
couldn't have helped but make the sher-
if preiudiced to this respondent and if
he could select from all the county Jurors
for this case his power of selection was
an undue advantage. 1t Is a dangerous
precedent to establish If q sheriff can
select men in advance for particular
case of importance whereas If regular
procedure were followed in calling the
Jurors, the State and respondent would
have equal rights"
At the afternoon session Mr. Sherman
concluded his argument and was followed
by States Attorney II. B. Shaw. Mr.
Shaw argued that there was no error ir
the procedure adopted in calling jurors
citing Secs. 1850 and l4sl of the statutes
The first provides that if at any time there
are not enough jurors In attendance tt
fill the panel of a case about to be tried
the court may order the sheriff or othe
officer to summon, with or without proc
ess, n sufficient number of judicious mef
OF the county to fill such panel. The sec
ond cited section provides that q count!
court during the term may order an ad
dtional number OF petit jurors To d.
summoned to attend the court at sucl
time as It directs.
Mr.. Shaw argued that no error was
made by the court in the charge
Judge Hall in making the charge out
lining the degrees OF hom'cide ah'
the penalty, spoke of the fact ina
The Legislature had provided tive
courses for the jury In arriving at
verdict of first degree murder. so tina
they might make the penalty impris
pnment for life or death. Judge Hal
suggested that the Legislature migh
have had in mind cases where infer
spondent placed the crime on the bor
herland between first and "A secon'
degree murder. states Attorney SHAY
argued that the court did charge Ia
Jury substantially as requested by tn
lefense.
ATTORNEY GENERALS ANSWItR.
Attorney-Geaeral ]. G. Sergent sal
there was no evidence and nothing I
show that the respondent in this cas-
lid not have fair trial by impartia
and fair-minded jurors. He said tina
he question OF mental inferiortty wa
Tor the jury to determine as matte
Of fact and not for the court I
charge 1t had no place in the court
charge.
S. r. Moulton. closing for the re
;pondent. said that the method pun
sued in calling the extra jurors in IL
trial in this case was not that pre-
scribed by sections 14SO and 1881 {
,he statutes. In this case jurors wei
u1mmoned by postcard, according
Tho testimony of one OF them, to /
AZ the courthouse on a certain date {
certain time. but no statement wf
given in the summons as to what tae
attendance was called for. Mr.. Mou
ton read from the testimony in II
lower court trial to show that II
mental inferlority of Bosworth WI
established.
Following the BOsworth case anoth
Chittenden county case was taken u
that of j. II. Stearns against H.
Graham, petition for writ of ma
damus. 8. r. Moulton appeared {
stearns and Attorney General j.
Sargent for ii. #. Graham.
Mr.. MoultOn said that In this case 4
petitioner was IL justice OF the peace
burlington and the petitionee the sta
auditor. The statute provides that
fees shall be paid jus.ices of the pea
,r town grand Jurors in criminal cas-
I'm cities or towns whore there are nun