Year: 1870

!, THE HAUNsTErS FORGERY CAsE-MoTIoN
TO QUAsH THE INDICTMENT AGAINST CHA
HooN.--'n Saturday the motion to dismiss
the case of George Chahoon, indicted for
forgery, from the docket was oyerruled.
The motion overruled involved the con-
struction of the act of Assembly, passed in
1865, amending the law of the Code in rela-
tion to criminal proceeding. 1t was con-
tended by the counsel for the accused that
Chahoon, although he had been indicted
| by grand jury, and been arrested for
trial before this court, should be sent before
a Justice of the peace to be examined be-
fore him, and then sent on for Indictment
before another grand jury, which should
again indict him before his final trial by q
petit jury in this court.


The judge delivered the following opin-
ion


THAT the question raised by counsel on
yesterday had been considered by him when
these indictments had been first found, and
| he had then substantially decided it by issu-
ing y capias to answer the indictment but
in Difference to the arguments Of the learned
counsel, he had agreed to reconsider 1t.
The best examination he had been able TO
give the question had confirmed the opin-
ion that his first view had been correct. 1t
never could have been in the contemplation
Of the Legislature that after 4 party had
been indicted by grand jury i'll court
competent to try him he should by that
court be sent to 4 committing magistrate
to be examined to be sent back to the
same court for reindictment.


In my view the latter clause of the 10th
section, acts OF '66-'7, which should have
been I separate section, gave this court full
authority TO issie capais, where an ill.,
dictmcnt is found, to bring the party into
court lor trial while the phraseolosy of
the 18th section might have authorized 4
different course, the language and meaning
Of the latter clause of the 18th section au-
thorized the bringing in Of the party under
capias for trial, rs had been done in this


motion to dismiss the case from the
docket"


The counsel for the accused excepted to
this opinion of the court.


Governor Wells then moved the court to
Gllash the indictment against the accused
on the ground that the grand jury was not
q competent grand jury, because, although
that BODY was chosen and selected accord
ing to the law rs laid down in the statute
books, yet, that in consequence OF the fact
that the provisions Of the statute are re-
pugnant TO the requirements Of the new
| Constitution, that therefore MI those stat
1ltes are repealed, and the indictment
| found by such grand jury was void and
Of no effect;


Mr.. Wise, Commonwealth Attorney,
; took the view that the constitutional pro-
! vision referred to was intended to circunl-
scribe, not to enlarge, the number of per-
! sons from whom Jurors might be selected.
! The Constitution only prescrihes that per-
! sons selected for jury service snail DC those


entitled to vote and to hold office, and none


others, under that Constitution. This does


not prevent the legislative power of the


State from enact:no that grand Jurors shall


have q freehold qualification, as tue present


law requires. lie contcndcd that the pres


cnt law is not repugnant to the Constitu
ton, and hence stands by the cXpreSs pro.
vision OF the Constitution itself. Tines,


points were elaborated and enforced in ;
very conclusive argument.


Judge Crump rej0ined ut length III sup
port OF tic motion CT Governor Wells, anC


after he concluded the Court adjourned


The decision will be announced this morn


ing.