Case Name: State of Maine vs. Parmenas E. Wheeler
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1874
Citations: 64 Me. 532
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Maine vs. Parmenas E. Wheeler.
Judges: Appleton, C. J., Walton, Dickerson, Barrows and Peters, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
State of Maine vs. Parmenas E. Wheeler.
One of the four days’ notice for the draft of jurors may he Sunday.
A notice posted August 14, 1873, for the draft of jurors on the eighteenth day of the same month is legal, under E. S., o. 106, § 9, although one of the “four days” between those dates be Sunday.
On exceptions.
Indictment under R. S., c. 27, for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. The respondent filed a plea that the person who signed the bill as foreman of the grand jury was not legally oc cupying that position because voted for and elected by three men, assuming to act as members of the panel, who were not properly so, becau.se the meeting at which they were drawn was notified August 14, 1873, and holden on the eighteenth day of the same month. The pleas were met finally by a demurrer. A motion to quash for the same cause was also filed and overruled. The demurrer was sustained, the plea adjudged bad, though the facts were found to be as therein stated. To this ruling the respondent excepted, and desired to except to the ruling denying the motion to quash, but the justice of the superior court, to which the indictment was returned, refused to allow them but exception was taken and allowed to this refusal.
William L. Putnam for the respondent.
Charles F. Libby, county attorney, for the state.

Opinion:
Virgin, <7.
By R. S., c. 106, § 9, a meeting for the drafting of jurors is called by posting notices at the places designated, "at least four days before such meeting."
Does the last clause mean "four days" exclusive of Sunday ? We think it does not. It is not so expressed. If the legislature so intended, they would have been likely to exclude Sunday in terms as in c. 84, § 3; c. 83, § 17, and in c. 107, § 8. Neither can we perceive any reason why the time covered by the notice may not properly include Sunday provided the day of the draft be not fixed on that day, for which there cari be no necessity.
We need not decide the other question raised.
Exceptions overruled.
Appleton, C. J., Walton, Dickerson, Barrows and Peters, JJ., concurred.