IN RE· ADAMS;
UNITED STATES 1'. HACKETT and others.
«(]ircuit(Jourt, N. IJ.:(Jalij'ornia. January 31,1887.)
OF UNITED STATES TRrCT-;l:NmcTME:NT. DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - DIVISION OF DIS-
Under act of c:ongress of August 5,1886, dividing California into two judicial districts;,and providing, 11. that "all offllllSesheretofore committed in the district of ahall be prosecuted, tried, and determined in the same manner, and with the "ssme effect, to all intents and purposes. as if this aet had not been passed," the old district and 'circuit courts for the district of California ar,e ,practically, in llxiste!?-fle . for the purpose of prosequtingoffenses antedating the passage of the act, and an indictment for such 'ali' 'offense found by a grand jury of the old district or circuit 'court, '&fter'tha passage of the act, is properly found. .',
. catl(ms of a jUfor, that he shall. have be'en "ass!;lssed on .'the last assessment roll' of the 'county; or· city and oounty; on property belonging to him, " to the 'United ,Sjatescourts, under th.eaPt-Af .congress ador-tiug. as the qualification , in the United States prescribed. b'y'law in the courts of pays taxes upon property assessed upon ,the state, it'is sufficient that the the assessment roll, althoug-hassessedin the name 'of another. . '.
Motion to Quash Indictment, and Plea in Abatement. The proceedings in this case were' remitted from the district court to the circuit court for TMmotion to quash was upon the ground that the act of congress of August, 5,1886, dividing California into two judicial districts, abolished the old district of California, and as this indictmentwas found by a grand jutyoftheold district court, after the passage of the act redistricting the state, that it was not properly found. The plea in abatement was on the ground that two of the grand jurors who foutid the indictment did not possess one of the qualifications for jurors;required by the statutes of California, viz., that they were not on the last assessment roll for any county in the district, and therefore the finding of an indictment by the grand jury was void.· .The act of August 5, 1886, provides for the organization of the Northern and Southern districts, and section l1·Of the act reads "that all offenses heretofore committed'in the district of California shall be prosecuted, tried, and determined in the same manner, and with the same effect, to all intents ;and purposes,asif this act had not been passed." The Code ofCivil Procedure ofqalifornia, § 198, reads;as follows: . "A person is competent to act as a juror if he be (I) a citizen of the United States, of the age,of twenty-one years,. who allall have been a resident of ·the .state one and. pf the county, or ,city and county, days, before being selected and retu.rned; (2) in possession o(his natural and of ordinary intelligence, and not decrepit; (3) possessed of sufficient knowledge of the EngliSh language; (4) on the last assessment roll of the county, or city and county, on property belonging to him. ·:."8ec.199; Apersqnis not cornpetent to act as a juror (1) who does not possess thegllaIifications prescribed preceding sectic;m;, Qr (2) who has been convicted of malfeasance in or any felony or other high crime." John.T. Carey, U. S. Atty., for plaintiff.