Show THE BRAIN TRULL ANOTHER OF IRELANDS IMPARTIAL 91 JURIES IT WAS PICKED BY PARTIES interested IN THE RESULT yesterday afternoon the trial of the united states vs edward brain charged with resisting a united stat states es officer was called ed up in a i the third district court bourt mr brown asked jor or a continuance of the case on the grounds set se forth I 1 in the till e following affidavit defendant depends nt icing first rot d duly u sworn deposes deso and so says ys I 1 have zy fully and fairly stated the fac facts to of this case to arthur brown my any attorney therein who resides in salt Lake City I 1 have bee been n advised behim by him after such statement made as aford aforesaid said that I 1 have a good and meritorious defense upon the merits thereof which advice I 1 verily believe to be true I 1 have been informed and believe to be true that the present panel of petit jurors sitting in this case have been summoned on an open venire by marshal E A ireland and his deputies I 1 have been informed that fact appears by the records of this court that the entire number of jurco jurors rs drawn in pursuance of the law of congress agress was exhausted at the first term of this court this year so that all the jurors at this term were summoned upon the said open venire in this case marshal ireland and his bis deputies are interested directly I 1 am charged by the indictment with resisting a deputy of marshal ireland to wit john W greenman and that in the presence of said marshal E A ireland the only witness endorsed on the back of the indictment delivered to me are the said john W greenman deputy marshal IE EE A ireland united states marshal K or S hal and henry k F collin united states deputy marshal I 1 I 1 have bee been informed and have good reason to believe that the said E A ireland who has ca charge e of summoning an open venire it rat ot jurors for this term is directly In interested terestea in securing and has been active in attempting to procure my conviction and all of said jurors were selected by him and his deputies I 1 believe I 1 cannot have an talal before a jury thus selected by said E A ireland and his deputies I 1 am informed and verily believe that at the next term of this court another person will act as marshal of this territory and a jury will not be selected by those interested to convict me of this offense offe nae I 1 am informed and believe that a part of t this his jury was summoned by the eaid deputy ep u ty greenman whom I 1 am charged with re resisting iti ng and I 1 refer to the files and a nd records of this court relating to the neuire of this court for the year 1886 EDWARD BRAIN subscribed and sworn to before me this lot day of may A D 1886 EDWARD B critchelow notary public mr dickson opposed the application for a continuance which was refused by the court mr brown next interposed a challenge to the jury panel on the grounds stated in the affidavit and for the reason that because of tue the cincu instances set forth the marshal and his hil aid were warp biased against the defendant dele busuti a and nd therefore had no right to lutone is they did mr critchelow took up the argument for the defense and quoted numerous authorities in support of his position this morning mr dickson made a short argument claiming that so long as the defendant was not deprived of an impartial jury the question n of the officer being interested or a witness in the case was not a ground of challenge le e mr mr brown followed and drew the attention of the court to the fact that no dental denial had been made ot ol the allegations in the affidavit and that the prosecutor had bad not cited a single authority thor ty to sustain his argument ent the fact that the officer selecting sele the jury was the injured party and the prosecuting witness made the challenge good under the common law to a jury chosen outside of the statute and under the common law mr brown held that if the common law method of securing a jury were adopted all the incidents thereto should be considered and mixed with the statute which only affected a jury emp ameled under the statute the court held that the fact of the officer being interested as a witness in the case did not disqualify him from summoning a jury and overruled the challenge clerk M mcmillan was then called and examined as to the reasons for and method by which the regular jury panel had become exhausted during the first term of f court in the year it had bad been on account of the number of united states cases named for trial and the issuing of additional venires for that purpose i in answer to a question by mr brown mr dickson replied that he did not pursue this method for the purpose ose or of hastening the introduction odthe of the open venire process mr browns objection on this point was overruled twelve men were then called as jur of whom J B paxton was challenged by the defense on the ground that he had been summoned by captain Green greenman mant who was interested in the result of the trial the challenge was overruled by th the e court and mr paxton was then peremptorily excuse excused dby aby the defense the jury em paneled ameled to try the case were as follows aws 0 E brim aaron sullivan 8 S maxwell T W D C mu murphy aph h henry carrigan 1 aw d rd hoe e W w P F fairish Ga irish sh WT W T barbee the indictment charges that on july ath 1885 while deputy marshal john W greenman was attempting to serve a subpoena on the defendants wife A annie ale peters brain the defendant 1 interfered I 1 nn and presented a p pistol i S t ol 01 told the deputy that it if he con continued tin a e d in the manner he was then proceeding he would treat b him im as a in mob 0 b tile the allegations made by the prosecution are denied by the defense who characterize them as an effort to terrorize anyone who demands as was done by the defendant in this case to know by what authority a person claiming to be an officer acts before permitting him to enter his bis house the examination of witnesses was proceeded with this afternoon |