State v. Black
| Citation | 20 A. 255 |
| Parties | STATE v. BLACK. |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1890 |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari to court of quarter sessions, Monmouth county.
On motion to quash an indictment for forgery. Act 1888, in regard to drawing jurors, provides that, where the defendant or prisoner is entitled to service of a special panel of jurors of 48 men, it shall be the duty of the sheriff to draw said special panel from the box, in the ordinary way, from the whole panel of jurors summoned to perform jury duty for the term.
Argued February term, 1890, before BEASLEY, C. J., and WALLING, BENNETT, and CURTIS, JJ.
R. T. & W. B. Stout, for defendant. Chas. Haight and John W. Schwartz, for the State.
BEASLEY, C. J. First objection: That one of the grand jurors was over 65. The statute (Revision, p. 273, §36) directs the sheriff to summon 24 good and lawful men, etc. The want of statutory qualification is made ground of challenge to the particular unqualified juror. Id. p. 531, § 41. There is no right given for this cause to challenge the array. See Gibbs v. State, 45 N. J. Law, 380. But in this case there is no challenge, but a motion to quash is made. The granting of such motion is a matter of discretion, and does not form any ground for a writ of error.
Second objection: That no legal list of 48 names of jurors was constituted to be served on defendant. The procedure in this respect seems unobjectionable, whether the act of 1888 was in force or not. If in force, the sheriff could not properly have put in the box the names of excused jurors. The statute must be reasonably construed. It requires only the names of jurors who, at time of drawing, stand, in contemplation of law, upon the general panel. The name of a deceased juror, or that of an excused juror, need not be noticed. If, on the other hand, we regard the act of 1888 as not in force, then the prior statute directs the sheriff to select 48 names from the general panel. This he has done in this case. It is true that the officer put the names on the general panel in the box, and drew from them the required number. This was his mode of making the selection, and such mode is not prohibited. Under the old law, sortition, though not the appointed way by express provision, was not only a legal method, but was a very commendable way, of choosing the 48 names to be served on the prisoner.
The last exception relates to the circumstance that one of the names in the list served on the defendant was not correctly stated. But this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarthy v. Walter
... ... Appeal from Supreme Court ... Separate quo warranto proceedings by the State of New Jersey on the relation of James W. McCarthy and others against Adolph Walter and others, and against Theodore A. Kleffman and others. Prom a ... ...
-
la Bell v. Quasdorf
...564; State v. Potter, 83 N.J.Law, 428, 85 A. 216, affirmed 85 N.J. Law, 388, 91 A. 1071; State v. Vandervere, 25 N.J.Law, 669; State v. Black (N. J.Sup.) 20 A. 255, affirmed 53 N.J.Law, 462, 23 A. 1081; State v. Lynch, 103 N.J. Law, 64, 134 A. 760. Such is not the case when the action taken......
-
In re Longo, 52.
...error or certiorari, unless it has been clearly abused. Cf. State v. Wood, 23 N.J.L. 560; State v. Vandervere, 25 N.J.L. 669; State v. Black, N.J.Sup., 20 A. 255, affirmed 53 N.J.L. 462, 23 A. 1081; State v. Potter, 83 N.J.L. 428, 85 A. 216, affirmed 85 N.J.L. 388, 91 A. 1071; State v. Lync......
-
Delmar v. Bergen County
... ... In any county now or hereafter having by any State or Federal census three hundred thousand or more inhabitants, the salaries of all judges of the court of common pleas hereafter appointed in and for ... ...