White Pine news. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1920-1923, 1922-05-28

trial OF Richard I. Swallow against
Anthony Zurich and A. A. Sherman
in an action whereby plaintiff sought
to recover from the defendants the
sum of $4,000 as damages for an
alleged libeloas communication writ
ten by Anthony Jurich, prominent
local counsellor, and published by
A. A. Sherman, editor of the White
Pine News, wherein the report of q
former grand jury was severely crit
icized, legal question was involved
so far reaching in its effect that il
becomes of deep interest to every
American citizen.
The case occupied the attention
of Judge w. e. Orr, of the Tenth
Judicial District of the State of Ne
yada, sitting for Judge c. J. McFad-
den of the Ninth Judicial District
Court in Ely five and a half days
last week. with a jury.
The legal question raised was as
to when the seal of secrecy protect
ing the deliberations of grand jurors
may be broken. and the decision OF
the eminent Nevada jurist on the
question is as follows:
The court desires to say that
whatever reference may be made by
1t to any of the existing situations
will be in the abstract as applied to
the cold propositions of law as Ii
sees them without reference what
ever to any person or persons err
gagged.
'As has been clearly demonstrated
and stated today our law as relating
to secrecy surrounding the delibera-
tions of grand juries has to some
extent been modified by reason OF
the later enlightenment which courts
have thrown upon the situation and
by what they believe to be the true
ends of justice. There is no conflict
| believe, In the authorities and in
the law as it exists today, thai as to
grand juries when exercising their
functions within thei: jurisdiction
and their deliberations and actions
are not subject to inquiry and must
remain secret.
THE question for the court to de-
eide here is whether or not it be-
lieves the grand jury, i'm filing this
paper, (which the Court will later
determine as to whether or not 1t
is q presentment), exceeds their
Jurisdiction as such. II they present
to a court In which they are duly
impanelled an indictment or present
ment they are then acting within
their jurisdiction and such act can
not be the subject of inquiry or tho
evidence upon which 1t was predicat-
ed be made the subject OF inquiry, sc
the court must now determine whcth-
er or not this paper Is a present
ment. IL Ii can be held that II was
presentment then there can be nc
inquiry into the action of the grand
Jury in framing ii. Counsel has
stated the law as to what constitutes
a presentment and in the perusal of
this instrument 1t may be easily un-
destood that certain things and facts
stated might be sufficient upon which
to predicate or base presentment.
But. can a grand jury, In its report.
as it relates TO the management OF
county. over a period of certain
time. take up and deal with all OF
the different offices all of the diff
ferent conditions and then pick out
certain portion which might apply
TO certain individuals. and, even
though it may in form be sufficient
to constitute a presentment. coll that
portion such. l would say 1t was not
the intent of the grand jury in filing
the paper so to do and in searching
about for the intent at the time what
do we find? They presented this
paper but with none of the safeguards
which the statute requires shall be
and surround the filing of present
ment. The very conditions of the
filing as appears from the record Is
convincing in determining tie fact
that the grand jury at the time had
no intention of its being a present
ment. Every indication would con-
clusively point to the fact that they
intended ii as a report
Another convincing thing. We
know that in the State of Nevada
grand Jurors have the assistance OF
the prosecuting attorney and can call
upon him TO prepare any papers and
do call upon him TO prepare such
papers as are used in criminal cases
THAT Is an invariable rule and II
is reasonable TO conclude that they
would do that here. l believe from
the very conditions surrounding the
filing of the paper that II Is report
A presentment has distinct entity
IL may be that certain form may not
be required but il must be a decu-
ment In itself and in order to give
the paper the dignity of a present
ment you cannot go and search from
among a mass of detail and a mass
of statements and CLEAN therefrom
enough to constitute presentment
and call 1t such, disregarding the
rest. think every situation sur
rounding the filing of this paper
leads to the inevitable and irresistible
conclusion that it is report and not
n presentment. So that from the
circumstances the court is forced tC
the conclusion that the paper filed by
the grand jury which has been tho
subject of the controversy here Is 4
report and not a presentment,
II ii is n report then have Tho
grand jurors exceeded their inris
diction and authority? II they have
can the statements made be made
the subject of inquiry on what Il
was predi Gated? There Is force tt
the argument as presented that courts
should 10 particular and careful I,
surround inquisitorial bodies, sncl
as grand juriei. wi certain safe
guards so that VIII m they ere callet
upon 20 perform certain functions
which are for the public good tina