United States v. Rondeau
| Decision Date | 01 March 1883 |
| Citation | 16 F. 109 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. RONDEAU and others. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Albert H. Leonard, U.S. Atty., and Charles E. Woods, Asst. U.S Atty., for the Government.
John D Rouse, Wm. Grant, and J. Ward Gurley, Jr., for defendants.
This matter is submitted on the demurrer to pleas to an indictment. The substance of the pleas is that there was default in the manner of drawing the grand jury which found this indictment, in this: that there were, at the time of the drawing, the names of but 303 persons in the box; that of those persons three were ineligible and three were dead. There can be no question but that the objection is properly presented to the court by a plea in abatement. The clerk and commissioner stand in place of the sheriff, so far as his functions have been transferred to them, and if their acts in preparing the list of jurors or placing them in the box have been characterized by 'default or favor,' the fact may be brought to the attention of the court by this plea. The question is as to the sufficiency of plea. It is to be observed the pleas admit that the grand jury which was actually impaneled and which found the indictment was composed of eligible persons; that three persons, dead at the time of drawing, were living at the opening of this term, the time the list was prepared, and impartiality or indifference of the commissioner and clerk who prepared the list. The point urged is that at the time of each drawing the statute has imperatively required that there shall be in the box from which jurors are drawn at least 300 names of living, eligible persons.
The correctness of the position of defendants' counsel depends upon the meaning of the statute. The statute provides that 'all such jurors, grand and petit, including those summoned during the session of the court, shall be publicly drawn from a box, containing at the time of each drawing the names of not less than 300 persons possessing the qualifications presented in section 800 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which names shall have been placed there by the clerk of such court and a commissioner,' etc. I give the argument pressed by the counsel for defense, springing from the use of negative words, its full effect. I understand the law to be in many cases that as to the thing negatived the law is imperative. The statute says not less than 300. The thing negatived is the number of names. If less than that number of names had been in the box at the time of the drawing the statute would have been violated, but the precise question here is as to the qualifications, which is a different thing from the number of persons. The question is whether the statute means absolutely at least 300 names of persons whom the commissioners, without favor or default, certify have the requisite qualifications, or absolutely at least 300 names of persons who shall absolutely have the requisite qualifications. After giving the fair effect to the law of construction as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammerschmidt v. United States
...any individual member of the public from being present when the drawing was made. Stockslager v. U.S., 116 F. 590, 54 C.C.A. 46; U.S. v. Rondeau (C.C.) 16 F. 109. It further contended that the deputy clerk of court has no authority to act with a jury commissioner of opposite politics in the......
-
Attorney Gen. ex rel. Connolly v. Reading
...Jury Commission Act, section 412, title 28, U. S. Code Annotated. See United States v. Murphy (D. C.) 224 F. 554, and United States v. Rondeau (C. C.) 16 F. 109, 111, 4 Woods, 185. The first-named act was attacked in Attorney General v. Parsell, 99 Mich. 381, 58 N. W. 335, 338,Mr. Justice L......
-
United States v. Brandt
...No case construing Section 1864 is to be found in the books. The only case in point that arose under former Section 412 is United States v. Rondeau, C.C., 16 F. 109. In that case there were 300 names in the box at the time the grand jury was drawn. Three of the persons had died and three we......
-
State v. Swim
...to, and that was the bystander. He could have had him excused if his rights were prejudiced by his serving. Sand. & H. Dig. sec. 2067; 16 F. 109. provisions of our statute requiring that grand jurors shall be served, etc., are merely directory, and a slight deviation from it is not fatal. S......