Show SUPREME COURT DESI S Abl nl J A llio alio ll Io of U alic ila in u tafoi a court la in 11 llin arnold Rr no nold ba aroll cf 1 yesterday was w bifield field day in the iho sa iltz it d previously T boon denounced from tho the lit a rl ol 01 important would be ba tendered rendered on thursday alij anil a aj a all tcp of thomasr was present the chalot judda I 1 that owing to tho the fact thit that judge jado ajner toas ion a tub limi aul clention lid had been fully coca pied by the buyince ol of tb ih i becoat aaa all thir tj district courts present term of 0 chosa promo court V roula bo be rendered rend eroil by iniga Borc lohn grid hima olf and nl judge might conour concur or booder artois iti vels opinions when he bo got time the alio first oraiun wan wall dalm bcd by audgo borom tho the chief j jolico a A ice tod and clenon concurring Cur ring the foli tila log is the opinion la in the lb ill D antl of 0 ali ah territory jaad F r au abo foitl kits buiko iov r ion vi gcorge jt apel ir lal X appeal frola cho I 1 I 1 itiba loarl the was wag indicted for ilo ilic 0 time of bigamy or found guilty kad and sentenced to imvris imprisonment to the be bad and to VOY pay ft ling line he appeals to 0 this thia court the the defendant fil gird d lid arlou orion aloa io in abate the first ficat plo plea raed ri cd the tb of thu prop r number dumber to i a grand jury il i bawit contended by ilia iha that bit it should have bato ben b ea composed of say number t f om can sixteen to a twenty three liro and not cot of the ho number of fifteen this question hu has beco bacod herota fore at a lorow cormor term do dc by thia courtia court io the tha matte of of ibis wry cpr defendant lor for thu this line it was wa upon the li cariag of that case at that time limo la in this court by tho the adine that fifteen we wai the proper bomber to constitute conil itule a grand jury and in thu that view this ibis court ca M ila ho now cornea into inlo court boort when n indictment b bai 0 boea been found agalos ii iDt hm lif by it grand gran I 1 jary jar ormed formed idea in got once willi nith that ruling and says bays bat such euah a grand jury can of fifteen members ii n illegal tile bourt ciobot ahra much mach respect tor for hn bid of in his pur auina a couro deemed very veri F rep the Thet action clion of 0 tho the court below abdow upon the leond plea was proper tho the drawing of the grand jary wits to io ol 01 tha order of tho juilio mide made and the court being 00 ol of etoral jurisdiction it it pro fumed nothing to th abo contrary y 1 haying a boon shown cho thai it aotoa correctly r e cv tail in ia accordance with willi low lav the proof however which wo we do not think it was tary to male blows dhows that all the requirements ot at the low law were air with the law iw required the judge judea public notice noti coot of tho intended draw jog as it was not necessary eslary that this should have hato been published in a but it it was wag dono done in ibis at cisa so tho notice WAG certainly baill chient as aa all all that the abo law lair is a public ablio notice by the judge it ii alleged as aa error that the loert churl below su tuai aino I 1 iho be challenge of the iho proa pro oulion to the who app earol to bo be blib rotated to ati to to tho the q asked wag as loll lollo dir wp AD in polygamy 7 the cobit cautioned ibi 1113 jar oro or that hit they need dead pit kit answer it the tha answer would tend end to it whom bom they de chord upon that bat ground to answer tho the bl is cibit those aurora brors I 1 were acro cuilty til III iho do crimo or oi ny this 13 is not dot tiko like sling s ling a juror J adur on a trial tor for lac larceny laccona cony vili ether be baa over stolen anything any ibin tr or on t a tria tor for murder it if ho had bad evor murder the ii not edid idid you V cu ever commit tho ilia crime or big aya my are ara ion no doing eo they virtually admit that ibry are arc would beall men meu make impartial Jl rori or baah HI the no law lair requires and mo men cannot be such if they are ra at that bit vry jog ike silicon crimo crime at that upon tho the A me can derer derat will ill never bo be it if lhotte in in worder murder TO are tho t b 0 jj j j rora aboy cannot cabonot be ba impart nl a aad it ai not De coji ary that the be cial ol of be shown by evidence wh alica ca ibay in efface i admitted it the refa 0 the court below to cue cu tain taia the defendants challenge to the juror charles rad ii is signed aligned a for onor error the juror said mid that he ha hid had formed an opinion as 3 to tho the guilt or innocence of tho thi ho accused but tic he did not thick thit that opinion wu was such each as 0 to o lin his verdict verdi cl there Ther awai ati nothing shown ci either by the ibe later cr or by extrinsic testimony to give eite the bourt gourt say aay idea ot of the character or nature ol of the ibo opinion the court therefore the took the tha jurors statement as ai true th tint atilio iho opinion was not such as a to lis lia vordia the iho on oa may hiyo have been from indefinite rumor and mounted amounted to nothing above a vague supposition suppo iliac it would hato bavo been very casy to have bavo asked the th or nature 0 of fabe be opinion opi aion it riot not giatia lavin been done we ire cin can see fee no BO error ia tho the of 0 the by ibo cho court tho record shows the finding fiodi ogot of the indictment th tho a on en dorseno dor it shows it clearly it would hyo have boon improper for the record book to have disclose tho liuio of tho the defendant as ai lio hel wn wis not then hen under arrest ja named danied amelia jano jane scofield ll 11 given testimony upon the former trial of t the defendant defon laut lor for the buna somo crime but bat bhea tho the trial of the ibo case cage at bir bar cimo oa on sho ebo could not bo be found was a resident fit at tho the house of the defendant but bat when bought there by tho the crit it wai nu aid abo was riot not at atheme home do a told tho the officer that the eho would not apper in ia the iho otio oro and ho he refused to tell whee ebo wita as it is true thit that the defendant was 11 not at r red bylaw to a aid the it aioo on in ia supplying witnesses against himself bimi elf but jo his ollard to avail hi hirai la I 1 belf beef of such right lo he went to the ey extent of showing that be was IMS favoring ard rd siding in her congealment aul and endeavoring to thwart the ef fortis or of the ibe officers ceta I 1 f the iho liw law to procuro her pren Buco suco sis a witness la in such a case ho he has bu no right to com complain it il abo court allows allow abo acil bail avi ev bonco to bo be introduced mj and the proof of ter her former to go co to the ho jury I 1 a on oa the former trial khe wits andar ad tr battit and subject to crogier cx by the abo defendant I 1 sod od them be was trig confronted by th tho a wit as aass the main objects of producing the upon tho the stand land had bad been att attained aiDed and aej BO 20 lights of his hia wora violated by the proof on this trill of her testimony upon the former trial there wits no error in ia the ibe roii refusal of tha chat court bolow to C oat retilio abo tea of Ild hamilton milton gamble it is not nn an 13 Common moa pro 01 00 tor for attorneys in ia identifying a 2 parly to point to liim him and ask aik the wi whether that is tho the man referred to especially when the lei ii to tho the side bids upon which be is billed to testify the iho last hat alleged c error signed aligned by tho the defendant no was a poi par tion oft or be instructions to the I 1 jury akyi I 1 it I 1 blouir claimed by the iho defea defendant dant that the chatt was vw wron is ia telling tho the jury lint they thou T 1 I consider what bra are to ba tho the to the io 10 tickling ot of this delusion th to la Is nothing whatever in ia this thia baago to warrant tho the that tho the jury jary might alit aliey osuld connot neon a thing but the ibo pr tho facts WO wo bro are nn enli runal li 1 to comprehend in the language idoa objected to anything beyond to the jury to kito give earn estand wein carein consideration to the be case it is ia of it a like nature willi a oili oillion tion some times to til C tt jary alto to torn trabor their oath and such like hie rattlers matters there thera was wai therefore poi PO impropriety ia a tho the language lang atKO need by tho the court coort bat it was wa in all ip ct proper I 1 nhon wo we remember blat some of 0 the jurors might lava bato been lo 10 bo of ilia ibo opinion that bit this wag not dot a great crime tho the doot rino rido that p iq ii light bee been I 1 pre Robed ind and pro 1 cf coil ia ibis territory r from froia its first to 0 o the 1 time lima in ia dc def fianco larica D of f 00 silk t uto of 0 stat silica 0 tuo the crime and especially too wo that bat this crime 63 a sod and Hiting influence upon rho ibo ol of all abbia willi a it touches as is every day and every where throughout thi ibis territory I 1 upon the ciso case thero roro we wa can poro ciro oivo that no ao error was a oom arm i bitted in ia tho cho court biogy bo ow it 1 is therefore thoro foro ordered that tho the judgment pi tho the court bolow below bt bi aff limed I 1 la I 1 this case ibo cho attorneys fr for ray her tioma paid ravo rare notice ol of na an appeal to the 1 united state supreme uio court and ii aecil bcd lor for a stay of execution poodle 9 tho the further litigation intention of t tho he canso 1 ho atay wai granted eran led and facts icat bonds bonda which word bell at tl 1000 will to 6 day among other oilier important import iDt cue decided were boro the cain bairs boirs and ami ilia be sarah M pratt fruit of oases jo io both of Dri Erig ghana liam young was waa defecated det cited others will to be pul albod bcd in triz Tm Trat uLac ivor |