The Case of the Missing Jury

In a dissenting opinion regarding the qualifications of jurors, Associate Justice William G. Langford addressed the validity of an act concerning the 'civil rights' of married women. The court examined whether a woman, as a member of a household, qualifies as a 'householder' and thus a competent grand juror. The Justice argued that the 1883 and 1886 acts passed by the Legislative Assembly were fundamentally flawed, lacking proper titles and sufficient enactment clauses, rendering them void. He noted that the 'married woman' acts were never intended to redefine the legal head of the household or impose jury duty upon women, stating: 'The evil which the Legislators intended to remove was the abuse, and imprisonment, and robbery of women by bad husbands... The object was good, and I am sorry to know that no law can effect much in this matter.' Consequently, he concluded that the qualifications for grand jurors remained unchanged, as the legislature had never explicitly expressed an intent to include women in that role, and thus the challenge to the jury should have been sustained.