Elko independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1915-current, 1918-01-07
GRAND JURY
IS HELD LEGAL
Judge AVeriII Denies Motion to
Set Aside indictment of
Arne Parus for Murder and
Reassigns Case

The Independent today received a
copy OF Judge AyeriIls ruling in the
case Of the State vs.. Arne Parus in
which he denies the motion 10 set
aside the indictment. The ruling is OF
IA: reaching Importance as it affects
all matters with which the present
grand jury has dealt, and all cases
tried in the state in which women sat
as Jurors
II will be remembered that Parus
shot and killed John Winter at White
Rock last fall, and the grand jury
brought in a true bill OF murder
against him. His attorneys. James
Dysart and Curler & Castle, attacked
the Indictment on nine different
grounds. In his ruling Judge Ayerill
says.
The motion 10 set aside the indlct-
ment in the above entitled matter
states nine grounds OF objection to-
Wit:
Il. That only twenty qualified per
sons were selected from which the
grand jury was to be drawn, instead OF
'wenty-four. which means that the
four women elected were not qualified
persons.
- That only twenty qualified per.
sons were summoned to appear.
3. That only thirteen qualified per
sons were selected to act. instead Of
seventeen, which means that the four
women selected TO act were not quail.
fed persons.
L That the grand iury was al ille-
gal body, because It consisted OF thir.
teen men and four women.
.. That the indictment vas found
by only ten qualified jurors, instead
OF the minimum number necessary,
twelve, which means that Of the four
teen persons who acted. the four wom-
en were not qualified.
s. That persons were permitted 10
/ be present during the deliberations Of
( the grand jury. who had no legal right
to be present. which means that the
/ four women were present.
-. That a state Of mind existed on
I the part OF certain grand jurors which
prevented them from acting imparti.
ally. which means, for reasons to be
stated hereafter that Mr.. Cazier was
not in the frame OF mind TO act i'm
partially.
g. That certain other grand jurors.
naming three, did not participate in
the consideration OF the charge CON
tained in the indictment. which seems
TO be supplementary to objection 5.
g. That OF the four women three
were not summoned, in fact, selected
as grand jurors. which means that
they were not designated by their
own names,
All the above can be reduced 70
three objections FOR the purposes ot
this discussion.
First That the four women were
not such qualified persons as could
BE- members OF a grand jury legally.
Second. That Mr.. Cazier WIS dis
q qualified
Third. That the names of the
% women used were such that they wer'
d not properly designated.
, Several other incidental objection!
appeared during the argument. which
b will state now, but discuss in a dif
ferent order than that OF the number
d used:
Fourth. That the women have
. different view point from the men.
Five. That their presence upot
: Juries necessarily brings about a viola
tion OF the law that prohibits the 80
l paratiou OF Jurors.
Six. That the pronoun he is use
in the statutes.
Seven. That to allow women {
serve a. Jurors would cause a mate
. rial change IN our jury system"
The case fs reviewed and cases ar
cited in twenty-five closely typewritte
pages. which conclude az follows:
1T seems. therefore. on this hig
authority. that IL matters little what
legislature has in mind or intend
when It passes an act except what
+"E++++++++++++-s+++-E++