Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1917-06-26
NINE MEN JURY
 IS KNOCKED OUT BY SUPREME COURT
High Tribunal Decides Con- stitutiOn Demands l2 Men
 Shall Try All Cases.

i Little Rock, June 25.-Arkansas' new nine-juror statute, allowing nine jurors in civil cases to return verdicts, Twas knocked out by the supreme court Monday morning as being unconstitu- tional.
 l The court refused to issue peti- tion instructing circuit Judge w. G. 1 Hendricks to receive verdict return ed by ten jurors in the case of c. E.. Shifner against the Minnequa Coop craze company, in which Shiffner sued l for damages for alleged false arrest. The ten jurors found in favor of the defendent company, and when |Judge Hendricks refused to allow the verdict and grant a judgment accord ingly, the cooperage company appeal ed to the supreme court for an order directing the judge to accept the ver- dict. Jury Is Twelve Men.
 That unanimity is one of the essen- tial features of a trial by jury, and that jury, under the constitution, consists of 12 men, were grounds set forth by the supreme court in nulli- living the statute. The measure was lenacted by the 1917 legislature.
 | An echo of the strike at Bauxite Hast summer was heard in the court Monday morning when a one-year pen. litentiary sentence imposed on R. c ICranford for shooting H. w. O'Kelly Twas affirmed. Canford was one of the Istrikers. He was indicted for assault to kill following the shooting.
 The state relied upon testimony con l hxy h1CNHhn,1,oNc O- Cranford from the scene of the shoot , ling to his home.
 Improvement District Cases. Validity of Road Improvement dis trict No. 1 of Woodruff county ant the Newport Levee district, bot]
 created by the 1917 legislature, wer upheld, and Road Improvement dis trict No. 8 of Jackson county, als created by the 1917 legislature, wa |invalidated, by decisions handed dow . by the supreme court Monday.
 The court held that the Jackso
 county road district law was so arbi
 trary and discriminatory on it's fac
 that it is void. In the Woodruff coun
 ty road district case the court hel
 that netitioners for project could no
 withdraw their signatures withou
 valid reasons of legal strength. In tn \ Newport Levee district case, that par of the act providing for taxation o
 personal property was nullified bu
 the remainder of the act upheld. The Jackson county road distric was formed by the legislature to re
 construct the Newport Augusta roac = Description of property to be taxed i Ithe district contained tract lying tw
 miles from the road and ommitte Hands intervening. In the chancer court the description given the trac lof land was declared clerical errol land the chancery court upheld val lidity of the district.
 The supreme court, however, re lversed the decision and remanded tn lease with directions to enter verdic |. in accord with the higher courts opin lion. The style of the case was lHeinemann vs. w. T. Sweatt.
 Taxation of Personal Property.
 Mondays decision of the suprem court upholding the act creating tn Newport Levee district was the frs
 decision ruling upon the legality c Itaxing personal property for local c
 special improvements. The court hel !CudG peISOudl pIOPCIly SVuio iioC taxed for such purposes, as person; e property could not be specially bent v fitted by local improvement. clause in the act provided. howeve
 that should such a Aart of the law | @ declared invalid. the ruling should nc : affect the remainder of the law, an n that clause saved the act.
 a The levee district was created Q Iconstruct levees for better protectio Q for Newport against the, ravages ( r. the White river.
 f D. H. Echols and others of Woot l. ruff county were among petitioners ft ;. Road Improvement district No. l ( . that county, but when the petition WE - before the county court for approv; 5 they asked to be allowed to withdra
 their names. saying they had change $. their minds upon the necessity ft
 the projects.
 Thes upreme court, in its decisic
 affirming that of the Woodruff char
 cery court, said the names could n, \ be withdrawn from the petition witt A out a valid reason of legal strengt
 land force. The reasons assigned | the petitioners were not sufficient, u