tjkited states v. fabbington. se3 �Tha United States ». Fabeington. Samb V. Lbakb. �Same U. PvICHAEDS. {District Court, JS. D. Nm Twh. , 1881.) �1. Ckimwal Offbkcb— PBKiiiJimiAB.T Investigatiok— DuTT OT CotruT. �" It is the duty of the court, in the control of its proceedings, to see to it that no person shall be subjected to the expense, vexation, and contumely of a trial for a criminal oflence unles8 the charge has been investigated and a reasonable foundation shown for an indictment or information. It is due also to the government to require, before the trial of an accused person, a fair preliminary investigation of the charges against him." �2. Gband Jubt— Evidence of Their Phocebdings. — Therefore, when- �ever it becomes necessary to the protection of public or private rights, any person may disclose in evidence what transpired before a grand jury. �3. Same — Evidence op Action dp iNDiraouAL Jukobs. — It -will not, �however, subserve any of the purposes of justice to disclose how indi- vidual juors voted, or what they said during their investigations; and these facts cannot therefore be shown in evidence. �4. Same — Indictmeiit — Incompetent Evidence — Prejudice — Revxew �CI' Investigations. — "It is not the province of the court to sit in review of the investigations of a grand jury as upon the review of a trial when error is alleged ; but in extreme cases, 'when the court can see that the flnding of a grand jury is based upon such uttcrly insuflB- cient evidence, or such palpably incompetent evidence, as to indicate that the indictment resulted from prejudice, orwas found in wilful disregard of the rights of the accused, the court should interfere ma quash the indictment." — [Ed. �Motion to Quash Several Indiotments. �Wallace, D. J. The motions to quash these indictments may properly be considered together. The defendants are indicted severally for offences under section .'iSOGi of the Ee- vised Statutes of the United States. The defendants Leake and Farrington are charged "with abstracting, emhezzling, and misappropriating funds of the First National Bank of Saratoga, and making false entries on the bboks of thebank, they being officers of the bank. The defendant Richards is charged with similar offences as to Ihe ftinds tod books of ����
