Year: 1873

was reversed, and defendant committed
to the custody of the sheriff of til,
proper county to be proceeded agains
under the laws of the Territorial size O
the court.


Whereupon. at the September tern
of said District Court, A. D. 1871, tn
case was submitted to Territorial grant
jury, and bill of Indictment was founi
and presented against the defendant fol
the crime Of murder in the first degree
committed at the county of Whatcom.


At the February term, 1872, of sale
court, he was tried and convicted under


laws of the Territory of murder il
the first degree. and the judgment ano
sentence Of tbs court was. that he suffel
death, and the defendant has again
brought his case to this court for re.
view.


Numerous errors have been ASST igned
for the reversal of the judgment of the
District Court.


It is now insisted by the defendant,
that the court below. had no jurisdiction
under the laws Of the Territory, to try
and determine the cause. The error as
signed as to that point is this:


The court erred in refusing to charge
the jury that if the proof shows that
"the oftense was committed on San
"Juan Island. they must accquit, be-
"cause of the time of the alleged, com
mission Of the offense charged, San
Juan Island ,pds not ,cithin the civil
jurisdiction of the Courts of Washing
g ton Territory.


Fearful that he will obtain under the
laws of the Territory, justice more than
he deserves, defendant now insists, that
not even the laws of the Territory can
reach him. .t--


This court, however, when the de-
fendant was before it, in the case of the
United States VS.. Watts, decided. that
the District Court of the Third Judicial
District. in the exercise of its jurisdic-
ton, under the laws of the Territory,
had authority to try and punish any
person who had committed murder on
the Island of San Juan; and this ruling
of the court was not dictum, but that
point had to be determined before the
court could discharge him from the
custody of the marshal, or commit de-
fendant to the sheriff, to be proceeded
against rnder the Territorial laws.


The defendant now asks that the de-
cision be reviewed and overruled and
has made an able argument in support
of his views. While we have no doubt
as to the authority of this court to re-
examine and review any and all decis-
sions heretofore made. yet when the
highest tribunal in State or Territory
has determined any question after cal e.
full consideration, such decision should
not be disturbed except for weighty
reasons.


If this court adopt the policy of re-
viewing its former decisions upon every
occasion it is asked so to do, the laws Of
the Territory will become nuch more
confused than now; nothing will be con-
sidered as settled and determined. 1t
were better that we follow the settled
adjudications of the court whatever
changes be made in the members there
of. We therefore accept the decision
heretofore made in the case of the
United States vs.. Watts as the law in
case uuder consideration, and conclude
that the District Court had ample juris-
diction in the case.


Defendant further insists that the
court erred in overruling his objections
to the Grand Jury.


What were these objections? Not that
any Of the Jurors were not qualiied; not
that any Of these had any prejudice CT
bias against him; no objection whatever
is made on those facts, but the record
discloses the fact that after the Grand
Jury had been discharged for the term
1t was shown to the court that the
public interest would be promoted by
re-summoning the Grand Jury in the
manner prescribed by law.


A summons was accordingly issued to
the sheriff for that purpose, and he pro-
ceeded to re-summon the jury, but he
could not find all of them, and the couit
ordered the panel filled from the by
ISLANDERS, in accordance with the pro-
visions of section 172 of the criminal
code. and herein the defendant inter-
poses his objections, and claims that
panel cannot be filled until all of the
former Grand Jury have been re-sum-
moned. Such construction is wholly
unreasonable and unwarranted and
would tend to defeat the object and pur-
pose of the law, to wit: to enable court
at all times when in session to bring in
Grand Jury; to the end that persons
charged with crime might if probably
guilty be put upon trial and, if moi
guilty, be at once discharged; this is a
matter of interest to the public. as well
as to the individual citizen. the court
very properly, on return not found
as to part of the jurors. ordered the
panel filed.


1t is further claimed that the record does
not show that twelve Grand Jurors con-
CURED in finding the bill.


The record shows that the Grand
Jury appeared in. open court, and that
the foreman in their presence presented
to the court the Indictment in question,
which was filed by the clerk in the pres


H. nj