The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1913-08-15
PHELAN QUASHES JURY;
ORDERS A NEW LIST;
GRAFT TRIALS DELAYED
Continued From Page One.I


they properly discharged their duties
ia a cOmmcndable manner, according TO
their knowledge, IN preparing jury
list IN what 70 them, appeared 10 DC
fair, proper ana dillEVnt manner,
furnishing "A list any board OF jury
commissioners might well be proud or
from the standpoint OF probity and IN
telliEence.
That while the commissioners named
In the third paragraph did furnish at
fidavits for the purpose OF change OF
venue, they only contained the eN-
pressions OF general opinion one
which they as individuals ana com
missioners. had a right TO exercise, III
they had one. without any individual
prejudice TO defendant. which, In my
opinion, il established from their tes-
timOny.
Jury board Not Prejudiced.
I find as further fact, from the
evidence, that In the exercise or their
duty In selecting and compiling lsI
OF names OF jurors. the commissioners
We're not prejudiced against tne ABOVE
named defendant but on the contrary,
were indifferent 20 the people or th'S
state and defendant, and did not occupy
the position known 10 the law IN
challenge 10 the array as untndtnerent
And i further ind that the charges
contained In grounds !, 2 I, o, ana
are not true. and that in the light OF
the testimony the charges contained
In grounds and : are Migrant ana
baseless.
Neither do l ind that the prosecut-
ing attorney ovcrstepped or went out
side OF hts duty in the matter or mis-
connection with the duties or MS OF
sioners selecting men whom the statute
designated generally.
Moreover these challenges 70 the
array have not been regularly signed
and verified as by law they are re-
quired TO be. However. | am not In
clined TO dispose OF this DEFENDANT
challenge. TO the array upon even q
substantial technicality. and will per-
nit defendant TO verify the challenges
IL ne so desires, the lack OF verihca-
tion being treated as an OVERSIGHT
That grounds 16. II. 10, 90 and 81 are
not supported by the evidence as well
as No. "a. which refers 10 the employ
ment OF one OF the jury commissioners:
that all are without force and are over
ruled
The Important Question.
Grounds 9, 10 and II or the challenge.
and Nos, IL. lS, IA and 10 OF the sup
plement raise the important question.
10 my mind. in this case. The other
reasons. which involve the exclusion
of every qualified elector in the eigh-
teenth ward which is frankly conceded
to have been done BY the commission
ers and which are covered by rem
sons TO Quash Nos s. 9. 10 and II. also
IA l3 IA and Is (Which are sub
stantially one) may be considered to-
gether
/ The effect of the arbitrary action OF
the commission, conceded and acknowl-
edged as IL is in excluding from their
consideration competent citizens, pos
sessing all the legal attributes OF quail
/ fled jurors, from the eighteenth ward.
alone amounting 10 several thousand
/ men in number, is a most grave and
serious question; and. while believing
I that the jury commissioners acted in
/ the utmost good faith. Yet. | find that
they went further than the laws OF this
state warrant
The right Of challenge TO the array.
while not frequently used is very
valuable one, as those who are familiar
with English and American history
know. The proper selection OF indif-
ferent men to serve as jurors has been
"a serious question for many years. At
common law, all jury rolls We're, AS a
rule, prepared and compiled by the
sheriff. a crown appointe for life. as
well as summoned by him after com
piling the same. This method In many
instances gave great cause OF COM
plant, especially In what were known
as political treason cases between the
rival parties which dominated England
at various tines, and while in Michi-
gan We have TO decision in case pre-
cisely like the one at bar or exactly in
point. still We have the vigorous eN-
preston in the opinion of Mr.. Justice
Morse. speaking for an undivided court.
In the case OF the people VS. Cough
lin. 81 Michigan, 40 which, so far as
applica Bile. is As follows
If II anywhere appeared that the
officers who drew the jury had ar
bitFartly left out the townships
from which Jurors were not drawn.
IL would have been a good cause
for quashing the array. But IL does
not so appear.
In the present case before this court.
II not only does so appear. but is ad-
mitted by the officers themselves ak
deliberately agreed upon as their poll
icy. to exclude the eighteenth ward
whore this defendant resides. so as TO
avoid drawing either friends or foes or
the defendant Therefore. If Mr.. Jus
ttCe Morse correctly stated the law, and
believe he did, then the array in this