hi I'.-ople vs. Thurston (5 Cal. 69). the samenih! wm stated, where Murray, C. J., deliver-ing the opinion of the court, said: -'1 regard

toe indictment thus found b> an illegallycon-st i tut eel body as worthless, and all proceed-ings bused upon Itvoid."' ;Bee also People vs.Ooflman, 24 OaL 284.) And such is the tenorol the general authorities. In People vs. Me-hnmara [8 Nev. 75; the court say: "An in-dictment found. t>y a jury not legally consti-tuted cannot be valid." In McEvoy vs. StatetQ Nebraska lt;3; the court sity: "The GrandJury must be selected In the manner pre-scribed bylaw. There Is no security to thecitizen but in a rigid adherence to the legis-

lative will, ac expressed in the b tatutes fur ageneral guidance." In Stokes vs. The State(•..' i Mi—. S2B) It was held that (we quote fromthe syllabus, which correctly stati s the (Lei-

ion) "A Grand Jury consists ofthe requisitenumber of competent individuals selected,summoned. impasU'led legally and swora ac-cording to the form oflaw, and ifthe forms benot followed the Grand Jury is incompetentto perform legal acts. * * * The

observance of the statute in regard tomation of a jurycannot be disj ci.c d

W.th." InKameyvs. The State (19 Tex. Ct.of Appeals 481; the court says that "A validIndictment is an Indispensable pre-requisiteto a legal prosecution t>r felony. 11 In Finleyvs. The State <il Ala. 2ul)the court, alter re-ferring to an unauthorized order made by the)< ;\vr court in procuring a Grand Jury, sa\ s:"The exercise of sneb a power by the court

v.ould be a violation of the spirit of all ourlegislation and would convert ilie Grand Juryj:.!n a iHfitlmrt. Independent body, drawnand summoned, by oincers specially chargedWith that doty, into a mere dependency of

lit, chosen by its absolute will. Thepractical results of such a power are too ap-parent t<> require discoeston or statement.

\u25a0n for imjiarting to the courtIn this instance more than mere error, buti o <•• laed in the hands of a capri-cious or an unscrupulous Judge would destroythe parity and Independence ot the GrandJury and pervert it from all the purposes ofii- intention."

There are numberless other authorities totbe same point, bat it Is useless to indulge infurther citation. And these authorities aredeterminative of the other form in which one

ndents' eounselstates his position,l»wit: That the court having obtained juris-aiction oi tbe matter of lormihga Grand Juryby flrsl mitring ;i valid order that certainjurors be drawn from the box, retained or thusacquire^ power to make tne subsequent in-valid order that other Jurors be Refected byEfc oil. lint that was the exact state oftarts inmany ofthe eases above cited, in Finley vs.

State, tor instance, ihe court hud Urst, i order that certain Qrand Jurors

be property draw n. and bad afterward nudean iileg-tlorder for the procurement ofotherjurors, rhe tad Is that the jurisdiction of therespondent to legally impanel s Orand jury

did not come from any order which it mactcIn the premises. That jurisdiction came from: iw, and was vested in the court beforeany order was made by It But that power

mited. There was room tor the playand exercise of discretion within tbe la-

; but they could not get beyond thatwithout overleaping or bnaiing .town thebarriers. The appointment ol Boot) was an: c. esuirelj Independent of,and distinct iroin,i... order tor the drawing of jurors from thebox; and it t my power to make it,such power must be tound In Uie law and uotinany previous action of tae court. As saidin lijgiion Kx. i*. loin. (Sec. 704. Sid El. a( ourt "will uol be perniitted to make a juris-

.. for Itself, by coupling matters beyondntrol with those upon which it mayully ;m!jui Icate. '• a c >. c uskm i> that tbe court bel w bad

i.o. ut lority in liw to appoint s jrt tMott t»> riiid Jiras, lec.ue Uiert* ku n-

-0 i o which the jO.ii-r of apjH inting uu

• t»uib "\u25a0• n {'•>\u25a0 •, r p.-r re nei'y?bi on He i . .-ii ..».-. h r.-ili' re h:ive

b .i !>\u25a0" c van B '"Witt on t r vi n g$M ofr-c c . . ,;i "i Mi r_• "i \u25a0!i i i pis ,s .\u25a0 edy

:nd a-... mtt remedy In t;•' « rdi> a- 1 course

0 aw." < ' . i'..'e ••.. l ;o'2 a d 1103 If1 .• ,i rwa berelnbe&ie expie«ea ur.- m r c ,ii is clear Lhat the uppouiwiaeut of Ux | ac tiled) c Isor Is*•*itnoutJuriMdiecion.** .i iris-

I* aiual y di-iineu a- "the jo.vertoad determine' ; bur.o course, ii itstiiffi-

c .ii to express, in :b, tract e.ns, i Ktutemenio thcdi iinction becweeu e.ioi in txe.es 114juris 11c i in an 1 juiid.ciioa Itsel', thuc.iii

\u25a0 i-r.-iuii.. applied to ail oases m vi \ mayimis1. Tiie iaw eidca.or.-. to fix uetiniu-iy< ye yth ng that c.n In us 1 att rj ue io axed,so as to leave as littlea ] potcibie totbe iu> gineiit or ca.'iic- ot' those who ; d nini-t r .1.

butts many future events cannon, la tie 1 a-tiro of things, b- foreseen and provided to*",i*. follows nc etsarUythat much mast b ef.t > tbe discretion ofcourutandotbi r tribunals.And ihe nii in t<;st of jurisdic.o t In anyparUculitr warier is wnetuer or not ds r -tion is <liv the court ;.s to sue.i n.at.r.In the matter before us. for instance, 11 tb.3law Intendeti to give the power to appoint aneltsor in the event, of cusquallfieattoa of theSheriff, 11 Is apparent that the law could notdetermine beforehand ihe d.-qualificationor any particular person who nuyl.t happento be Sheriff at any future time, itcould notsay ihat any such Sheriff would be actuatedby"bias or preiuai.\u25a0,-."' Consequently tlie de-termination o! the is-ne, when i>roperlyniade,of such disqualification, is necessarily left tothe discretion ofthe court; and it has juris-diction to hear and determine that issue, lintwhen there is no such dlaquaUflcatioß, thenthere is no discretion given to determinewhether an ellsor should or should not beappointed. Consequently, when there is suchan issue made and the court finds agajnst thedisqualification, or when, us In tne case atbar. itis admitted there is no such disqualifi-cation, then no jurisdiction exists to makethe appointment. And tbe jurynot beinj,' alegal Dodjr, and the to-called indictment be.ng\u25a0void, then, as before quoted from Levy \s.Wilson, "thi' court has no jurisdiction to trytbe petitioner upon it." Tne conclusion fol-lows th.it the proposed action of the courtvould be without und in excess of its jurisdic-tion.

The only other question is: Would peti-tioner have a plain, speedy and adequateremedy in the ordinary coarse ol law.

If these be such remedy it muatbebyap-j-«al. iiut it \%ojid bea dihicult protOsitionto maintain that a defendant inacnmntulcase, forced through all the stages of a trialfor Atony without any Indictment a.ainst.him, or, whicb is the same thing in effect,ii(,on a void Indictment, would have a piain,speedy and adequate r>-n.eiy. because at.erconviction and judgment, andPpernaps afterBuffering th Ignominy of imprisonment ini.c tMate Prison, he c .uld have the iIL-gai

\u25a0 rooeedinf teve sedonappjaL But it is not\u25a0eeessary to disctfss thai (question, because it)i is b.•< d held several tunes by this court th:it(Jie point here made by jetitioner cannot bereached on apj eaT. It was so lield by ourpredecessors in i'eople vs. Southwell, 40 Cal.,l-H. tntbateaseUM lower court has madean order reciting ihat where objections to theM.eiiir, and that the court intended to submit<ert;.in charges against him to the Grand

and for that reaw n arp >mud the Coro-; (i to suinnioii tbe Grand Jurors. The de-fendanl attacked in the court below thelegality of the Grand Jury upon the ground ofBuch appointment of the Coroner by movingtovetande the indictment. On appeal thiso-'iirt lim held that the appointment of theCoroner was illegal, that the question couldbe reviewed on appeal; and that the judgmentShould be reversed; saying among other"mi--; that "a. due regard to the rightsof all persons accused, or to be accusedby the Grand Jury, required that that bodyshould be summoned by the officer intrustedb;- law with the performance of that duty."

But a rehearing was granted^and after fur-ther consideration the court (Wallace, C. J.,dissenting and adhering to the former opin-ion) held that "in its legal efleet the motion

oballeuge to tbe panel," and that, as theobjection to tbe summoning of a juryby theCoroner wan not a statutory ground of chal-tenge to our panel, the defendant bad no rem-

-11 appeal. In Feople \s. Welch, 49 Cal.3 74, the court below had allowed the DistrictAttorney to eunuine the *>herifl as to hisqualifications to summon a jury, and uponnis testimony thai be was biased against thedefendant, had appointed the Coroner tosummon tue jury. Ihe Ujiendant objected to

enire Jor that reason; but this court, onwhile holding (hat the action of the

aourt below was wrong, held also that t4iequestion could not be reached, saying that'i nf"People vs. Southwell "is authority fortheproposition that the mistake of the Judge inthis case wn> not ground lor challenge to thepanel of trial jurors, or of objection to thevenire."' (Ii will be noticed that in both ofthe above cases there was an attempt, in someform, to attack the qualifications oi theSheriff). The same rale was announced inPeople vs. Colby (54 Cai. 37). aud People vs.Hunter (Id. 651; and in each of said cases ThePeople vs. Southwell is mentioned and ex-pressly approved. And unless all of thesecases—anu some later one*—are to be over-ruled, there is no way in which the questionraised in the cast at bar cau be readied exceptby the writ ofprohibition.

And such, we think, was the decision of thiscourt in Levyfvs. Wilson (69 Cod. 106). Inthat case the s-etit^on was for a writof prohi-bition. Tne petitioner set forth that he hadbovn indicted by a body of men styled aGrand Jury, but "that the body that found

i=.'! id Indictment was not a Grand Jury.ora"j.ijd.ieral or constitutional body of GrandJurors"; that tbe respoodeitt, Wilson, Judge49f the court iv which said indictment waspending, was about, to proceed to try pett-t inner ujjo:i Bald indictment: and that he.vould so proceed unless prohibited by ih-.' or-der of this court. Whereupon he prayed thatv "writ ofprohibition" be issued "restrainingsnid Hon. T. W. Wilson as a Judge of said Su-perior Court from taking any lurther notionfyf proceeding in said matter." (See petitionin said ease.) Now, the first question pre-.-enu>4 to the court, and which it must havedecided atlirmativelv before looking further*jilothe oiise. was this: Assuming that thebefdy of meu by wbom petitioner was indicted

\u25a0r.ii valid Grand Jury, is pro-! 11 ition the proper remedy, and has the court

liction under that proceeding to grant;.et prayed for? Ifthe decision had been

£dve«eto the proposition that prohibition>vould life in such a ease, there would haveVetO no occasion for the court proceeding luf-

thcrand examining into the grounds uponwnich petitioner, in that particular instance,rested hisc iaiwsof the Invalidityofthe jury;the ca.«e would navr stopped at the threshold.And the question was fully presented and.elaborately argued by opposing counsel. JLou-derback. for petitioner, argued t-trenuouslythat prohibition wss the proper remedy, andcited numerous authorities to sustain his \«j---s-ition; while the lirst point made by counsellor respondent (.1. Jf. E. Wilson) was thatprohibition would rot lie-authority also be-ing cited to that point. And so if the courthad agreed with the petition 01 respondentit would have dismissed the proceedingsupon that ground. But no such course waspursued. It entertained the writ of prohibi-tion, and discussed thecas.s wlitre it willandwill not lie. and clearly helu that it wouldlie when there was an indictment by a bodynot a valid and coustiiutional Grand jury.Such is the nects-ary result of the action ofthe court; and such is the conclusion thatmust follow the language whicu is used. Inthat case the petitioner, unions other things,had alleged numerous irregularities asgrounds of the illegalityof the Grand .Jury,and the court in \u25a0peakingof those us< d thinlanguage: 'Most of the grounds stated fur thepurpose are irregularities and errors accruingbefore and alter the finding and return of theindictment. Bat as these are matters whichare reversible and reiuandable on appeal inthe action, there are no grounds fur v writofprohibition, Prohibition lits to an-proceedings of a judicial tribunal w.icn theyare without or in excess ofits jurise.i.tion;ai;d the writ is tamable only in in ease:, wl.enthere is not a]hin, speedy and adequateremedy in the ordinary course of law." But.having disposed ot these minor matters, thecourt proceeds: "One of the grounds stated inthe petition is, that the indicime-m was foundbya body of men sty.cd a Grand Jury thatwas not in 'aw mid in fut a \alia and con-stitutional Grand Jury. It tiiat be so, the ac-cusatory paper returned by them to the courtbelow as an indictment is worthless and void(People vs. Thurston, 5 Cat. 69), and the courthas no jurisdiciion to try the petitioner uponit." And so tiie express language of thecourt is a clear statement that ii in that casethe indictment had been found by a bo lyofmen who wira not a legal Grand Jury, theperemptory writot prohibition would Lavebeen granted.

Fioin every standpoint, therefore, the casemust be take n as a full authority to the pointthat prohibition lies in the case at bar. Hutwhen the court proceeded and looked into themerits of that case it found against the pe-titioner. The fact relied on was that the courtbelow, after having ordered sonic of the> irand.Jurors drawn from the jury-box, bad (hen or-dered the Sheriff to seiYc! the rest from theI ody of the county. The point insist -d on bypetitioner wus that under the ConstitutionGrand Jurois must be "drawn.'' and thatdrawn meant taken from the Jury-box by iot;and ihaLtu<-' statutory provision allowing ti <\u25a0

court to direct the (Sheriff to select juroi munconstitutional. On tuat point the decisionof the court was against the petitioner. WhileIIc ,y> that, "We an- of opinion that Inbelow, in exercising its discretion, ought tohave ordered the panel to bo filled by requir-ing the clerk In open court, and in the pres-ence of the.l udjre, to draw the requisite'num-ber ot names from the Grand Jury box, in-stead of requiring the siunil' to Himmfflijurors from the body of the city and county";yet it holds that "the course adopted by thecourt was one authorized by the code" Hutiftho court had held with the petitioner inhis contention about tl.e Sheriff's power Itlaclear that the writwoulu have issued. As tothe case of ex parte llaymond, it is sufficientto say that distinction between a mere witnesskiiu;i party indicted lor a felony, is too clearte> need discussion.

We are of opinion, therefore that there is nojurisdiction in the respondent to proceed withIne trial of petitioner; that the latter has no-piain, speedy and adequate remedy in theordinary course of law," and that pi< hibitionis the proper remedy.

Petitioner makes me point that at the timeof the order complained of there was a rule otthe Superior Court ofSan Francisco, made bythe twelve Judges thereof, and never re-pealed or abrogated, as iol'lows: "Rale 1. Itshall be the duty of the Presiding Jud_retopiejuie over the drawing and impanelinent ofall < trend Juries required by law or the publicinterests to be drawn. Grand Jurors mustIflaJeases be drawn from the list ot QrandJurors selected by the Judges of this court,unless t:ie Grand Jury b )x containing thenames of jurors so selected be exhaustedwithout securing a Grand Jury." A!so, thatthe Constitution requires a Grand Jury to bedrawn, and that "drawn" means taken bylot from a jury box. Also, that one of thealleged indictments agiinst petitioner showsuroa its f:;ce that if the crime charged wascommitted at all it was committed in thecounty of Sacramento, and without the juris-diction of respondents. Also, that the" trialjurors before whom be weald be tried havelikewise, le.-n j r >cur< d by another similarorder appointing another elisor. A!sn. thatpetitioner was compelled to appear beforesaid Grand Jury and test f \u25a0 as to the verycharges upon which he was indicted. Rut asour view's heretofore expies ed a:e deter-minative of the case, and as some of siMquestions are reviewable on appeal, we deiniit unnecessary to here discuss them.Let the writ issue, nstrainng the respond-ents as prayed for in the peiiiion.

McFauland, J.We concur: Harrison, J.; Paterson, J.A concurring; opinion was aura written by

Justice Garoutte.OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE BEATTY.

Chief Justice Beatty concurs in tho majorityopinion a^ a- as the illegalityof the GrandJury is concerned, but does not believe thatthe. writ ol'prohibition is the process by whichthe question can properly be raised.

The Chief Justice concludes bis opinion asfollows "As to the objection tl:at the indict-ment forbribery in tins case shows on its facethat no part of theoliense was committed inSan Francisco no answer is made, and I donot see how any can be made. But althoughIt seems pretty clear that the Superior Courtof San Francisco has no jurisdiction ol the of-iense charged, I do not think this court shouldinterfere by prohibition until the particulardefect referred to has been called to the atten-tion of the Superior Court by demurrer, andeven men appeal would be the usual n me 1\The other objections to the indictment donot, in my e>pinion, involve any question ofjurisdiction. Upon these grounus, whi cfully concurring with the Cjiirt in :U c in-struction of the statute relating to ii c ap-pointment ofan elisor to select and summontalesmen, I am constrained to dissent fromthe conclusion that the error of the SuperiorCourt can be corrected byprohibition.

DISSENTING OPINIONS.

Views of Justices Sharpsteln and I)eHaven on the Points at Issue.

Justices Sharpstein and DeHaven indissenting from the opinions given abovereason as follows:

OPINION OK JUSTICE SHARPSTEIX.Justice Sharpstein's opinion reads:Idissent.It steins to me that theonly serious question

in this case is whether the court, in the ab-sence ot an affidavit showing that the Sheriffand Coroner were "disqualified, or by reasonoi any bias, prejudice or other cause wouldnot act promptly or impartially," has thepower to direct 'an elisor chosen by the courtforthwith to summon ho many good and law-fulmen of the county or city and county toserve as jurors as may be required," whichwas fullyand carefully considered in Peoolevs. Southwell, -local, 141, and determinedagainst the contention oftins petitioner. I n-dcr the law tnen in force the Coroner was au-thorized to execute process only when theSheriff was a party to an action or specialproceeding. Itnowhere appears, nor is it sug-ilts.i din People against .Southwell, that tiiesberitl was d£tqnafijled to serve ihe venire.Therefore the power of the court to direct it toilie Coroner In that ease rested upon no betterlouudation than the power of the court in thiscase to direct it to an elisor. The court, inpeople against Southwell, very pertinently re-marks that "A Grand Jury, summoned ;npursuance of a venire duly issued, cannot besaid to be a whollyillegal body basing nosemblance of authority merely because thecourt erromously directed the'venire to beserved by the Coioner instead of the Sheriff."

In that clothe 'O.irt saiei: 'We thi.:k tincourt erreu In dhe iing the venire to be sum-moned b» i.ieco.o ur tea ei.dof the Mi nil."Th U shows that ii was i o. a ease in which t.iecourt was authorized by :uw to dine: t..e ve-nt n-to the Coruner. na/l it been, the courtc juldno: have said that it was error to s > ui-iu" it. i ttnnJi the oi in on of the court inPejp.e*g:\mni S mthwtll is amply supj o:U<lby reason and uucboriiy. and that itwould bemuch safer te> lcllow than overiidc it.I tk< re ore think the application forawii:

of pioaibition ivthis case should be denied.SXABBKKnr, J.

.TVSTICK DX HAVES'S OPIXIOS.The opinion of Justice De Haveu is as

follows:I dissent.The indictments pending against petitioner

la Department Six of the Superior ( o.irj vir»leturned by a I O iy ot men impaneled by thateOflfi a< a c^iamt .iury. In my opinion the1 -tri.e i Judge of the Superior court com-mitted an error in mtiknr the order which di-rected the summoning; of some ».f its mem-t>ers by an eiisor i i tlir absence of a .«howin%that tho Sherilt was d;. qjaliaed to i c orra

that duty. Section 226 of the Code of CivilProcelure provides: -'Wleiever jurors arenot drawn orsumnu n< d to ufeud any courtif >eori <r session Hereof, or a sufficientnumber of iorors tail u> appe.tr. sue!: courtmay order a suf cient number to be !o -tliwithdrawn aim m masoned lo attend the court, orit may by an order dine: the Sberifl or anelisor choc i by the c >ir forthwith to sum-mon bo n any g>od andi awful men to m rye asjurors asma> « nqu;..\u25a0>!," and in eitberoa-*such jurors mast be summoned In th- ms n-ner provid a la tie pteeedlng section.This section d >es r.ot, when p-o.erlyconslrued, give to the Judge an ab-solute discretion to ;ee-t any p.r-son to complete the p mcl. w.ihout lvfer.-nceto the Sheriff or his disqualifications. It Bachwere the intention ot the law it would havebeen more dearly expressed by omitting theword SlitritTaltog. ther.and simply providingthat the jurors suould be selected bysome per-son numed for that purpose in the order, andthen the court would have been left with com-plete discretion to select the Sherifforanyother person to execute the order; but such isnot i:s language, said, giving due etlect to theword "elisor" in the connection in which it isbere used, the true nua tin:; of this section isthat the court shall direct the.Sherin" to Btim-mun such Jurors,or In easeof hisdlsquall-ikatiou some perauu to act in his place. t;utthis error of the court did notconvert tiie bodyImpaneled by ita> a Grand Jury into a bodyot usurpers without any semblance of au-thority, and whose aecusationsaremere nulli-ties which the court »s without jurisdiction toentertain. (The court has undoubted authorityto impanel a Grand Jury.

its order made for the drawing was regular,ana when in due course ot theproceedings cer-tain of those drawn were excused from wrv-ing, and there did not remain a sufficientnumber ofcompeteni juror*to lorn; ;i. pon 1.

the court was called upon in the exercise 01its jurisdiction to obtain additional jurors,and'how this should be done was a matter l«.rtheourtto determine by its order and in-volved tne eserdse of discretion as to whetherthey should Mdrawn or Bummoned, and Inthe event that the letter mode was adopted,required the exercise of judgment ana ii<-

cis-ion whether (inner toe law tlie execution < fits order should t.e directed ta the (sheriff orBODie other person.

That the. iudsje of the court was thus calledupon to do what the law required in the prem-ises to evident, and that thia was the exerciseofajudieal function on a matter over whichhe had perfect jurisdiction is to tit) mind soclear that the mere statement of th,' proposi-tion ends ail argument upon the point. Theright to act in the matter at all an i 10 decidefor the time being what wns the law applicablet jthe proceeding before tne court coubtUutedjurisdiction in e\eiy sense of that t» jmi, andno mere error in the decision of the quest.onthus regularly before it eouM deprive i.h. eoartof jurisdictionover that proceeding or makei;s orders therein subject to a Collateral attackas absolutely mi and void. The court havingtnis juristlictioi over the several proceedingsi; follows me ssarily that the Jury Imponeli dby it is ade facto body, having t i <*- right to oxBfCSK the functions of a (.rand Jury, ana(Those iudictimnis can only bequest'Oiied Inthe court to which they were returned « itu thel-ijiht to appeal from any Judgment therein.Every possible objection which under the lawcan be taken to the formation of such a Jurymust be presented by the accu.-ed in thatcjurt, and not by an Independent andcollateral action in unjiher court. Tnat tii^objection uere urged against ttiis Grand Juryis a mere irregulaiity and does Dot at allaffectthe jurisdiction of the Superior Court over theindictments returned against the petitioner,was in my opinion clearly held in the case ofthe PeopieslalnstSouthwelL 46th <_'.v. Hi.In ttiat case the jurors had bein (•e:e.-tea byan unauthorized per on, and thiKcourt on ap-|.« ai i-aM this was only an irregularity, andone for which the statute did not even pro\ idea remedy. Jn thus deculLig and affirmingaJudgment ofconviction the court ne.essanlyHeld that siu h an irregularity was n jtfatal tothe jurisdiction ofthe court to trya defendantupon an indictment returned by aGrand Jurymany of whose mi mbers had been Irregularlysummoned. Itwas there said: "Itis Claimedon behalf of the defendant that if the GrandJury was not selected and summoned as re-quired by taw it was an illegal body whichusurped the functions ofa Grand Jury.and itslies are w bellyvoid."

And in the course of its opinion the court inpointing oat the difference between a GrandJury which bad technical defects in Iteorganl-sation and a bed/wholly without authorityand whose indictments could i o- be properlyconsidered by the court, further said:

"Itmay be that ifa paper be presented totheaourtin the fcrin of an indictment, butwhich was found by a body of men having nosemblance of authority to a•} as a GrandJury, it would be the duty of the court tostrik' it from the Hies as a more'nullity, andas utterly worthla a for any purpose. Itwould have no piop r j1 ice upon the tilesof the ( o irt. and ougnt thereior to be removedtrom ilieni. Hut tuc motion to set asiue tneinUictinent, u| on .Section :.J7B. >vould have noapplication to uuchacase. tinder that Bee-tion the motion is ad iressed to Irregularitiesiv tiie proceedinga o. a valid Grand Jury, andnot to Irregularities In the formation of the(txand Jury Itself. 13ut it is= not a very rl>\ hikrregularity winch nay occu>' in the lor.na-tion of sw Grand Jury wnich w0..1a justify tU'.-court in striking the Indictment from thefiks as a nullity. O.lierwise, Ihure would b«.'no reason for a euallcuge to impanel. as allelections to the Grand .Jury coula be takeni>u a inotton to strike the Inuk) ment from thefl.es. Tl.e true distinction lie.- between tin-acts of a bouy having no semblance of au-thority to act :a alt, and of a body wnic.i,though not si.ric/.ly Kgnlar in itso;v:.n z uiun,is nevertheless acting i nuer color ol autuori y.In the termer ease tiie ;.c;s ol the Whollyjil.'iral body are nullities, nav'.ng no pr.p \u25a0;\u25a0

place among tiie files of the c r.rt. iiuiin viehitter case Section It2of the statute j!n y.t e-thf onlyiiut.iou by v-.hich mere irregularitiesin the formation ol the Gram; J ury can be iu-.liiiieil int(j. The caaa at bar comes withinthe latter category.

"ijnthe tuctH disclosed by the record it can-not be affirmed that the Grand Jury had noBcmblance ofauthority and was acting with-out color of leszU right. It w: s regularlydrawn from a Grand Jury list, duty certified,and some of them having been exo :teu thec.' liciency was supplied by a \emiv, properlyIssued by the order ol tiie court.

uWe think the court erred in directing thevenire to be sammoned by the Coroner in-Stead ot the Sheriff, luu tins «ls only one ofthe Irregularities for which the statute hadtailed to provide a remedy. A Grand JuryMtmmoued la pursuauc \u25a0 of a venire dulyissued caoapt be said tobe a wholly Illegalbody having no semblance of authority,merely because the court frroneout-lj directedthe venire to be served by the Coroner insteadof thuSiieriH". •

••It was ai: error of which the defendant,perhaps, might justlycomplain, but the Ma:- !11U: hii.- p;ui Idea no remeay for it."'

This ctecis o.i has never teen o/erriiled, buton the contrary baa been repeatedly referredto as authority In later casts in tills CO art,and seems to be conclusive of every questionpresented tr\ this neon;. Indeed, in/ atten-iiuii has; not been <?a!lt-d to the decision oi'unvcourt, either la this ytate orfteltewhere, lawuicn it lias been bold that an Irregularity la 'the formation ofa Grand Jury ot tne chara'.r-ts r bere complained, ofcan be corrected in acol lateral action.

In Wl'.arton's 'Criminal Law and Practice,"Section aSO. ii la suid: "I,the body by whomthe indictment was found was neither de jurenor tie facto entitled to act aitocu.theQ theproceedings are a noUity, and the defendantut any {trod when he is advised o: such null-ityis entitled to attack thun by motion toquash or by plea in abatement, or when the

I objection is of record, by motion <>f arrest In; judgment- lie is in zno.it jurisdictions shel-| teied by constitutional piovlsions troni prose-cution, except upon indictment found by aGrand Jury, and when the body llndins theindictment is not a Grand Jury, either de

; iure or de factb, then the prosecution mustjfall when the question is duly raised. liut ade laeto Grand Jury cannot be deemel a mvl-ny under this provision of the Constitution."

This M-eiiis to me to be the true role, and inthe ease of ex parte Hayinond. 2? Pacific Re-|x>rts. b59. we held upon the same state ofacts disclosed in this record, but this same[ Grand Jury was a de facto Grand Jury. Tnis

: being so, in my opinion, the Superior CourtI lias jurisdiction to proceed upon the indict-I menta, and any judgment which it might

make would not be void and therefore thewrit should be denied. In the foregoing Ihave ns-umed that the ofieosefl ciar^edagainst ttxe petitioner are alleue^i to have beencommitted >n whole or in part within the cityand <•< unty »l"San Francisco. If, however, tlieindictments are defective in this respict. andit Is not shown that the attention of the Supe-rior Court has been called thereto, petitioneris not entitled, as a matter of right at thistime, to the writ demanded. Db Ha.vex, J.

M'AULEY'S WATERLOO.

The San Francisco Boxer Falls Beforethe Agile Turner.

An Exhibition of Generalship and

Gnmeness Seldom Equaled—lt

.Lusted Eleven Hounds.

As was predicted, the glove contest be-tween McAuley of San Francisco andTurner (colored) of this city, which tookplace at the Comique, Theatre, Saturdayevening, turned out to be one of the clev-erest svnd most scientific contests of thekind that ever occurred in Sacramento.

Both men have good records, and arenoted lbr their hard hitting qualities.Turner appeared in splendid conditionand looked strong enough to fight for hislife. McAuley, however, probably thoughthe would have an easy time with the manof color, and had not bec^n careful in histraining. He did not seem to have hisold-lime stamina, but, nevertheless, hewas quick and active, and*gave a splen-did exhibition of pluck.

LOOKKB A WIXN'KR.During the lir.st three rounds the con-

test appeared to be all in McAuley'Sfavor. He was smiling and confident,and, despite the fact that Turner v.;:s do-ing all the forcing, the white man's coun-ters and left-hand stops were doing themost damage. McAuley tried the "LaBlanche" swing several times in theserounds, but the colored man was ex-tremely wary and dodged all of them ex-cept one. which landed on hittiorehu&dand staggered him.

In thu fourth round Turner evenedmatters up I*3- llooring McAuley duringa hot rally at the ropes. The white manwas up in a twinkling, however, amiwithstood Turner's lushes cleverly, inthe fifthround the colored man was s'.iiipushing matters, while McAuley re-mained on the defensive. Just at theclose of the round the San Franciscoboxer landed another staggering LaBlanche swing on the brunette's fore-head. The latter retaliated quickly witha resounding slap on the white man'smouth.

LIVELY WORK.The sixth round was one of the best in

the contest. Itwas characterized by hotexchanges of hard blows all through.Turner lost his temper during the roundand for a minute fought wildly, lie wasbrought to his senses, however, byanother heavy pivot blow, or La Blancheswing.

In the next round McAuley's lack ofcondition began to tell. He was breath-ing laboriously and appeared to begettingtired, lie kept close to his adversary andtook every opportunity to laud someheavy body blows. He also landed somecrushing neck blows with left and right.In the eighth round the colored man

LANDED OX M'AfLEV's NOSKAnd soon the blood was trickling downthe white man's breast. McAuley wasgetting weaker all the time, but insscience stood him well in hand and pro-vented the colored man from finishinghim. In the ninth McAuley became des-perate und rushed Turner and lauded apivot blow. He missed another ami fellfrom the lorce of his own blow. Turnerjabbed the white man unmercifully inthis round with his left.

When the tenth round opened it wasplain that, barring a chance blow, Turnerwould win. McAuley was "groggy"and had lost his strength. Tumor wentat him savagely and landed repeatedly.McAniey was game to the last, however,and tried his best to stem the tid<—but inyaiu. The eleventh round was th;; lastTurner rushed McAuley, and landedhard and often. McAuiey made a des-perate swing at the black man, butmissed. The force ot the fnetloctiveblow piroutted him, and just as he camearound facing his opponent a^ain, thelatter hit him on the point of the chin,knocking him down and rendering himkor& 'in combat.

The big audience cheered the whiteman for his gamtness. Turner, the vic-tor was pronounced a good one, and hewas immediately matched to meet hisnamesake, Turner of Stockton, in twoweeks. McAuley -nlso challenged himfor another match.

Tying: a Shoe-String.Does your daintily-fashioned shoe

bother you with a trailing shoe-sting,threatening to trip you up? Then tie it asfollows: Proceed exactly as if you wereabout to tie an ordinary bow knot,but * e-fore you draw it up, pass the right bandloop through the knot; give a steady andsiimilu.nMius pull on both loops, andyou may tread the sands of time or theocean beach all day, nn<t waltz into thewee sma' hours of the; morning, and thatshoe-string will never trip yon up. inuntying, be sure to pull the right handline and the string will readily loosen,but ifyou pull the other you willfind it anhard to unfasten as some hastily-tiedmatrimonial knots.—Boston Herald.

SACRAMENTO DAILY EECORD-t^IOK, MONDAY, DECEMBEK 14, 1891.—SIX PAGES.

AH ILLEGAL BODY.

COXTHTCKB FROM FIRST PAGE.

6

Used is Millions of Homes— 40 Years the Standard*

Highest of aJI in Leavening Power.—U. S. Gov't Report, Aug. 17, 1889.

ABSOUUTEI* SHIRS

Bad Blood.WBMnsanKUSSSXIBBfSEBRIBBU&SB

Impure or vitiated blood is ninem~3tSf K» times out of teu caused by bcbic

VJki&yfrQjpf f'>rni of constipation or indiges-tion that clogs up the system,

j§*HW- y when the blood naturally be-, comes impregnated with the el-i|^SSv Km fete matter. TheoldSarsaparillas

attempt to reach this conditionby attacking the blood with the

irasfic mineral "potash." The potash theory issld and obsolete. Joy's Vegetable Sarsaparilla is

i modern. It goes to the seat of the trouble. Itirouses the liver, kidneys and bowels to health-!ul action, and invigorates the circulation, andthe impuritiea are quickly carried off through

iie natural channels. -j^Try it and note it* delightful

ictioa. Chas. Lee, at Beamish'sthird and Market Streets, 3. F., jt^T^WCirrites: "I took it for vitiated tL*->£*§/jlood and while on the first bot- Nrfj^??tfJe became convinced of its mer- V^.'vSl^ta, for I could feel itwas work- KfeLaKKj?ng a change. It < leansed, pari- W&£fifwJsftjJed and braced me up generally, ' f^rtnd everything is now workingfulland regular."

IffciiV VegetableagSßj _ ...yjyy q SarsapaniSa

A THOUSAND THiinifIIBEAUTIFULOar object in advertising is t3 make sales, but we could not do it if we

didn't have the quality and quantity of goods, and sell at the lowest prices.During the last month we have made the most desperate efforts, and successnow stands smilingly by us. We have devoted extraordinary energies tothe grand sweep in our

DRESS GOODS DEPARTMENT,And the dust is Hying about lively, to the advantage of both patron anddealer. Quality, you know, is generally preferable to bulk, but we cansafely assure you that you <jet both by calling at THE NONPAREIL.

HANDKERCHIEFSOf every design; some of them are even fascinating in shape. We havethem for little money and for much money, according to what your tastedictates. But the plain styles and best qualities, these wanted for service,and not for ornament only, are cheap.

Ladies' Scalloped and Embroidered Handkerchiefs,25 cents.

Ladies' White Initial Handkerchiefs, m boxes of six,85 cents a box.'

Ladies' Scalloped and Embroidered Handkerchiefs,15 and 16- j cents each.

Ladies' All-silk Scalloped Handkerchiefs, assortedcolors and lovely shades, 2O cents each.

Ladies' All-silk Embroidered, 25 cents each.All-silk Hemstitched, Embroidered and Imitated, 75

cents each.An endless variety of Silk Handkerchiefs, embroid-

ered and Spanish work, from 25e to $1 75 each.

KID GLOVES.Real kid, four button, dressed, worth $1 50. Our

price, $1 per pair.8-button Undressed Mousquetaire, tans only. Our

price, 90 cents per pair.8-button Undressed Mousquetaire, extra quality,

every shade. Our price, $1 50 per pair.IM. 8.-Glove fittlr-ijg:is our specialty, and we guar-

antee all gloves fitted at our counters.

OUP PRICES WILL ASTONISH THE MOST CHRONIC AND SKEPTICALBARGAIN SEEKER IN THIS COMMUNITY.

I~^Mail Orders Carefully Executed. Samples and Prices Free oa Application. *:vl

Corner Fifth and J Streets.AGENTS FOR BUI'TERICK PATTERNS.

TWO WEEKS TO OJ-lIFS.IST3VrjPs.syAre you aware of bow near we are to the Holidays? Tv.o weeks from Friday of this

week and we will be at Christmas time, and all know that Christmas time means wintertime. Gime early and secure some cf our rare bargains in WARM WINTER CLOTHINGand FURNISHING GOODS. Our Grand Removal Sale is in full blast, and bargains areto be had in all lines, bo not delay your visit, bet come at once.

PERUSE OUR PRICES:

Men's Fancy Worsted Four-button CatfiWiJ Suits, worth $15, no* S g OOlien's Fancy Silk-mixed Cassimere Four-button Cutaway Suits, worth $16, now 1O OOMen's Fancy Cheviot Sack Suits, worth $14, now 7 QOMen's Clack Worsted Suits, worth $5, now . 2 »qMen's Fancy Worsted Suits, worth $6, now .7.7.7.7.7.*.' 300Men's Fancy Cassimere Suits, wortb $S, now .7.7.7.7.7. -4 OOMen's Fancy Cheviot All-woo! Suits, worth 510. now 777 576Men's Extra Fancy Cheviot All-wool Suits, worth $12, now .7....*! 650Men's Fine Worsted All-wool Broadwa!e>, worth $17 50, now 12 £5OMen's Fine French Imported Black Corkscrew, worth 522 50, now 7.7.7.7.7 15 OOMen's Fine French Imported Worsteds, in broad and narrow wales, worth $zs,

now \-j r(\Boys' Sailor Suits, worth ?i 25, nor; /t &Boys' Suits, long pants, union cissimore. 13 to 18, worth $4, n0w...., .' 2£2 3Boys' Suits, long pants, all-irocl cassir.iere, wortb $5 50. new ...7.7.7 300Men's Cotton Pants, worth $] 25, now qqMen's Cassimere Pants, wortii S2, now \ qqMen's Ali-wool Fine Cassimere Pants, worth 53, now ...77!.7" 173Men's Fine Irtnch Worsted Pants worth $7 50, now 5 qqMen s B Call Sew* \ Shoes, in !ace, congress, and batten, worth $1 50, now .' 9OMen's B Calf Solid -Sewed Shoe:?, in lace, congress and button, worth $2, now... 123Men's Heavy Police Lace Shoes, three Sdles, worth $?, now '. 1 ggMen's Heavy Railroad Extension Soles, worth $3, now 7.7.7.7.7 1 S3Men's I'ine Calf Shoes, in lace, coagress and button, worth 53 50 and 54 now 2Men's Fine French Calf Hand sewed Shoes, in lace, congress and buiton

worth $4 50, flew 2 75Come and See for Yourself. No Reserve. Everything Must Go

11. MARKS, MECHANICAL CLOTHING BOUSE, 414 X STREET.PBEB THAT YOU MAKE XO MISTAKE IX TITE XUMBER.

BVOZinE .1. CUEGOKY. tBAXI ORS6OKT

GREGM3RY BROS. CO.SUCCESSORS TO GREGORY, BARNES A

Co.. Nos. 126and U8 J BU.Savnuuento,wtaolesaJe dealers In Produce and Fruit. Pollstoclts of Potatoes. Vegetables, Green aud !Urietl Fruits. 1; ;ir.s, A'.fal.'U. Batter, Be?S, iCheese, I'ouitry. etc.. siUviivs on hand. Ofuers i

flltedat LOV EST KA'li:s.

S. GEHBON & CO.,WHOLESALE

Fruit, Produce ar.il Commission Merckats,SACRAMENTO, CAX*

P. O. Eox 170.

CURTIS BROS. & CO.,General Commission Mercbants.

Wholesale Dealers in Fruit and Produce,308, 81©, 819 XSt., Sacramento.

Telephone 67. Postoffite Box 335.

H. G. MAY & CO.,

RETAIL DEALERS AND SHIPPERS OFFruit, Produce, Poultry, Game and b ish.

428-430 X Street, Cornor Fifth.

P-O. lioi. 523. Telephone. 39. dO-tf

CALIFORNIA MARKET,710 X Street.

POULTRY. BUTTER, EGGS. FI3H ANDJL > \u25a0f.etublt-s. Exerythingof the bent. «-iiveus a trial. fdS-tf] GAKZOLI A GENIS.

(1O TO BARTONS CANDY KITCHEN~X for Holiday Candies, Novelties and TretDccoraUoos. sio J street. db-tf

JXnJJevtrtltvro.j. i^anTTurC"

UNDERTAKING PARLORS,IOT7-1010 Fourth St., Sncramento.

EMBALMING A SPECIALTY. GEORGFli CLAKK, Fuiioral Director and County

Coronrr. Telephone No. IS4.

W. J. KAVAIUUGH, Undertak^No. 518 J St., hot. Fifth and Sixth.

A LWAYB ON HAND A LARGK ASSORT.r\ nient o( Metallic and Woo-ien Casketsbttrial Okies, Coffins and Shrouds furnished.; \;!!;u ord« rs \ylllreceive prompt attention onshort notice and at the lowest rates, oilicso;>. n d.i> and night. Telephone No. 305.

JOHN MILLER(Successor to Fritz <fc Miller)

UNDERTAKING PARLORS,(l(\Z X STREET (ODD FELOWS' TEM-tiyJy I'ie)- A complete stock ofUndertakingSvuil Tv)\oa hulld- EMBALMING Atsl-*Jb-CIALri. ielcDnone No. lhS.

SCHAW, INGRAM, BATCHER& CO.,

«17 and 219 J Street.

Builders' Hardware,Iron, Steel and Pipe.

Agents for Oliver's PatentChilled and Casaday Sulky andGang Plows.

Canton Steel, Hazard Pow-der, Gillingham Portland Ce-ment*

CMAS. RL.OMR,1 AOi SIXTH STREET, IMPORTER ANDiV/Crt dealer In Flue Shotguns, Rities and

liitols. Agent ior the celebrated Imperialaho.'gjn. Loaded Ammunition of the bestqaahtjr ior shotguns, rifles and pistols alwayson hand. Sates ana Scale* repaired and Lock-.sinithinar jrlven prompt attention. Call andtry my Machine-loaded, "Reliable" ShotgunAmmunition. Repairing of all kinds neatlycone and warranted. dB-tf

tfttggting gtoticee.

THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THEbtockholdei-s of the Masonic Hall Associa-tion of Sacramento, Cal., will be held at Ma-

waite Building, southwest corner Sixth andtj \ *?>\S- MoXL)AY EVENING, lH^miwr

uo-lut JOHN W. ROCK, President.

T^ir>^V L̂~^ U.E OFFICE OF THE SANiieMM'M-C°, Cull'" "IJ°st." -Bulletin" andreport has been removed to 631 J street._' ili2-3t*

MR.S. L. AI. BATES, METAPHYSICIANUAWi ~*B">lSNa^entli and V streets.

Safit—£ovinb.T OST^JN/fHiVciTTS?S~\T^KDITJU a gold hunting case watch. *20 rewardwaibe paid lor Us return to E.*: JACOBS01-l ihnteenth str.e-, and no q^lioml

uSAea- Ul4-3t«1 OST-LAST EVENING, ATTHE~LETTER1^ Carriers' ball, a scarf pi

n. Finder returnto 14^>oi^ Q street, and receive rewarddl2-2t*

TPs3r± SMALL BLACK-AJ-D-TAKDOG|ljhad on mi ollar; answers to name.ofJerry. Return to DR. G. G. TYRRELL,and rtct-ive reward. dll-St*

WANTED BY A GERMAN WOMA~~~Asituation to do general housework or asHO U^HOTEt 1 ~>• « room 19 , btaTß

V\TANTED-GIRI.S TO SELL TOYS WHOvr V,VwA- some experience. Applyto 0.H. GiLMAN, R_d House, Irom 9 a. m to 4*•*• d!4-3t

WANTED--TO PURCHASE SOME SEC-ond-hand duck decoys. Address E. O^thisoffice.__ * dl4-3t*

W A?Tv~Dr-A WOJfAN TO TAKE CARE\T ofchildren. Applyat 1701 X street.dlg-3t»

WANTED-A GALVANIC BATTEITf:VAI'^^11 good ordor; also > '-"heap. Ad-

dress KATTKRY. this office. dl2-2t*

WANTF.n-A REFINEI),"INTELLIGENTmarried lady or widow in Sacramento

to superintend the sale of our "ImperialShields. ' tvery married woman a sure patroaA permanent position and $200 per monthguaranteed. Address, with reference as toCharacter and ability, 11. H. LANG, Mana<*e-San Fram isco. Cal. Write to-day. dll-;{t»"'\yANTKD-Kl\E GENTLEMEN, WIDE>y awake, with good address; salary or?"!nmj??ioll>, APPIy to the SINGER MANU-FACTURING CO^ ;309 J street.UTAXTED^MKN KOiWaRMS, VINE-\\ yards, dairies and all kinds of labor-women and girls for cooking and genera*

housework; plenty of work for desirable help.Apply at ESIPLuYMENT OFFICE Fourthstreet, X and L.

®° Ccj_s^ "font,mO LET-A FURNISHED^ININaIROOMX in good location. Board for rent Auniv 'ai '.»14 Seventh street. dl4-7t*

rnwo room.s partly furnished forJL housekeeping; rent fs per month. Ap-plyat illLstreet» dl 4-timo LET—FIVE UNFURNISHED r6~OMS.JL with use of stubk; rent. $6 per month.Inquireoi M. PPFFY, Ho3Jst. dio-6t*POR BOARD WITH" ORJJ rooms; also, furnished rooms for house-keeping, inquire at 1211 Seventh st. dlO-6t*TJ\O LET—THREE FURNISHED ROOMSJL suitable for housekeeping; 1418 Sixth

street d9-ut*mo LET — THE TWO-STORY~ BRICKJL stable (fireproof) on part of lot 7 (60xS0)0 and P, Flfteentfa and Sixteenth streets1large enough for 80 tons of hay, and containssis stalls. Inquire of JOS. BEEtJE, next doorcast, on P. d9-tf

TO LET—COMFORTABLY FURNISHEDdouble parlors, gas and bath, with or with-

o.it beard; convenient to State Printing Officeand Capitol. For terms address Q. this o.Tice.

dB-6t*

rpO LET—FOUR FURNISHED ROOMSJL and bath, at 1233 G street. dB-lw*

aM) LET—THE NIl'K, FIVE-ROOM COT-. tage corner Seventh and P; large rooms-ail modern improvements. Inquire at 704 P

\u25a0 Iree t.

TO LET-FURNISHED ROOMS SUlT-able for one or two gentlemen, or gentle-

man and wife, with or without board; withinten minutes' walk of State Bindery. AddressL. \ .. this office. dB-Gt*rpo LET—9IO-912 M STREET. HOUSEX of IS rooms, suitable for boarding ordwelling house. Apply to SILLER BKOS..1230 P street. do-tfmO LET-NICELY FURNISHED FRONTJ room; references required. 1208 Ninth

street. d2-tf

T7IURNISHED ROOMS, WITHOUT BOARD,JC at International Hotel, 320 to 326 Xstreet. W. A. CASWELL, Proprietor.

TJtURNISHED ROOMS AT CENTRALJj House, irom §5 per month upward; also.lamily rooms at low prices. HORNLEINBROS., Proprietors.

171OR SALE~~ CHEAP — A BENSINGERJJ Self-Adding Register; good as new. Apply1U23 Second sireei. dl2-0t»

ij^Oß SALE-ONE OF THE BEST LITTLE' Jereey cows in the city; gives very rich

milk a:id plenty of ii; a very desirable familycow in every respect. H. \V. KIVETT, 1128U street. dll-3t

I^OR SALE OR TO RENT—THM UNDER-; signed oflen for sale or to rent her ranch

in Yolo Cotinty, on the Sacramento River,about eight miles above the town of Wash-ington. It contains nearly four hundredaenfl of tirst-class bottom land, and willproduce grain, alfalfa and vegetables of allkinds in great abundance. The property willbe leased for from one to live years on reason-able terms. For particulars inquire of Holl&Dunn, U2O Fifth street, Sacramento City,

dlu-tf S ARAH McKEARNEY.

FOR SALE-THE VALLEYBRAND CON-densed milk, by all retail grocers. Ask

lor it. d9-lm»

FOR SALE—THE SHELVING AND FlX-tures ofa grocery store. Applyat 416 X

ktreel. A7-zyr

IpOR SALE, OR WILL EXCHANGE FOR' farming land—160 acres (about 80 acres

in lull bearing trees) Placer County land, sevenmiles from LoomU, Rocklln and Roseville,four miles from Folsom; good house of 11rooms; rented last year for $1,500, MILLSA: HAWK. Third and J sts., Sacramenti>.nl&-U

I^OR SALE—LOTS 40 OR FEET,. north side of P street, between Twentieth

and Twenty-tirst streets; one of the finest loca-tions in the city—above all possible floods. W.K. CHAMHEKLAIN,1018 Mstreet.

i^OR SALE—ONE OF THE FINEST AND1 largest saioons in the city; extra familyentrance; best location; stock and lease, in-quire ut this office.

FOR HALF. OK TO RENT ON LEASE—Ten aciei of bottom land, one mile below

Washington, Yolo County; it sold will tak«tnv-ill payment down. Applyto EDWIN K.-W.SII' <!t CO., Real Estate and InsuranceAgent*. 1015 fourth street.

HOLIDAY GOODSIHiiOur extensive lines of XMAS

NOVELTIES are now open lorinspection.

43-OPEN EVENINGS.-S»

208-210 J Street. .MINCE MEATS,

IVIOUrMXAIN APPLESAnd the mo;t select stock of

GROCERIES.

R. A. OLMSTEAD & CO.,S. E. Cor. Fourth and L Sts.

lAMSYP3LLS?( WHeoxV———Compo~fcd7)

SAFE, CERTAIN & EFFECTUAL.Lid monthlyb? 10,0(0 American womct^who find

them Indlipcnnbie. Drug^UU, or by trail.&6Sd4e.citam[>i)far '"Wwn^n'iSafe-Guarl."

''GOFF'S GIANT GLOBULES"Stroiittnl Irri-orintknown. Rcttore LMtVljwhi5 day». DraQptU, or by mail. PartkularifitaiedjicwiLcoa. BP£cirio co.,pniLA.. pa.

Sold by KIRK, GEARY & CO., Sacramento

SEND THE WEEKLY UNION TO YOURlriends in the East. Itleads them all,