W. E. Roche Fruit Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 29052.
| Decision Date | 10 July 1943 |
| Docket Number | 29052. |
| Parties | W. E. ROCHE FRUIT CO. v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Action by W. E. Roche Fruit Company against Northern Pacific Railway Company for damage to a fruit shipment. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Robert J. Willis, judge.
Rigg Brown & Halverson, of Yakima, and Robert S. Macfarlane and Earl F. Requa, both of Seattle, for appellant.
J. P Tonkoff, of Yakima, for respondent.
This matter comes Before us on a bill of exceptions presenting but one question, which the appellant states as follows: 'Is it a substantial compliance with Section 96 of the Code [Rem.Rev.Stat.] in the selection of a jury list for the Judge to place on that list the names of women who had solicited jury service by signing a coupon published in the newspaper, addressed to the Clerk of the Court, or who had personally called at the Clerk's office and asked to be placed on the jury list, practically all of the women on the panel composing 50% thereof being of that category?'
When the matter was called for trial in December, 1942, the jury panel was, at the request of appellant's counsel excluded from the courtroom, whereupon he interposed a challenge to the venire, as follows:
'Mr. Brown: At this time, the defendant desires to interpose a challenge to the entire venire, on the grounds that a large proportion of it, all the women, were selected, not in substantial compliance with Section 96 of the Code, but in direct violation of Section 96; and for the further reason that every woman serving on this panel was listed as a prospective juror because of the fact that she solicited such service, in violation of Section 96 of the Code and in violation of the fundamental law relative to selection of jurors.'
Mr. Reid Thomas, clerk of Yakima county, was called and testified that, during the previous June, additional names were added to the jury list certified to by the county assessor.
It appears that, for a number of years prior thereto, no women had served as jurors in Yakima county, due to a complete lack of facilities to take care of mixed juries. Such facilities were made available in the new courthouse during the spring of 1942, and some sort of a display advertisement was published in the papers advising the public that women jurors would be acceptable. Unfortunately, there is no copy of this advertisement in the record, but it is said to have contained a coupon which the women of the county might fill out and send to the clerk indicating their willingness to serve. Some filled out and mailed these coupons; others personally delivered them at the clerk's office. The judges ordered the names of these women to be added to the jury list.
In appellant's statement of the question involved, and in its argument, these women are said to have 'solicited' jury service. We assume that the use of the word solicited is based upon the following question put to Mr. Thomas, and his answer thereto:
It will be observed that the word 'requested' was used in the question put to the witness, not in his answer. We think the attention of the witness was fixed upon the point as to whether the women on the panel challenged were the persons whose names had gotten on the list in the manner above related, and that he was not assuming to decide whether their action in returning the coupons by mail or in person constituted a solicitation. In view of the fact that women are not required by law to render jury service, we think the true situation here is that, instead of their soliciting the privilege of serving, they were requested and solicited to serve, and, as the trial court suggested, volunteered to do so. It is altogether likely that, at least, some of them did not especially desire to serve, but answered the call purely out of a sense of duty.
The court denied the challenge to the venire. When the panel returned to the courtroom, the court, by prearrangement with counsel, asked the following question: 'Will the women of the panel, who volunteered for jury service during this term, please stand, so that we may see which of you volunteered?'
All of the women, eight in number, arose. Of those, six ultimately became...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Budd v. Kaiser Gypsum Co.
...annulled because of some slight irregularity that has had no effect upon the purpose to be effected. W. E. Roche Fruit Co. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Wash.2d 484, 487–88, 139 P.2d 714 (1943).¶15 During a pretrial hearing on August 7, 2020, the trial court explained how its jury services departm......
-
State v. Roberts
...from the statutes, prejudice will be presumed." Tingdale, 117 Wash.2d at 600, 817 P.2d 850 (citing W.E. Roche Fruit Co. v. N. Pac. R. Co., 18 Wash.2d 484, 139 P.2d 714 (1943)). A trial court's decision to excuse members of the jury venire is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. T......
-
In re Pers. Restraint of: Mulamba
... ... W.E. Roche Fruit Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway ... ...
-
City of Tukwila v. Garrett
...117 Wash.2d 595, 600, 817 P.2d 850 (1991); State v. Finlayson, 69 Wash.2d 155, 157, 417 P.2d 624 (1966); W.E. Roche Fruit Co. v. N. Pac. Ry., 18 Wash.2d 484, 488, 139 P.2d 714 (1943); State v. Rholeder, 82 Wash. 618, 620, 144 P. 914 (1914); RCW 2.36.065 (providing that "[n]othing in this ch......
-
Chapter §47.6 Analysis
...to have their case tried by a jury selected in compliance with the statutorily prescribed procedure. W.E. Roche Fruit Co. v. N. Pac. Ry., 18 Wn.2d 484, 487, 139 P.2d 714 (1943); City ofTukwila v. Garrett, 165 Wn.2d 152,164-65,196 P.3d 681 (2008). Jury selection is a procedural matter and st......