Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/360

348 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �be such as the court would regard aa making out a prima /acte case against the accused. 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 finding of a grand jury is based upon such utterly insufficient evidence, or such pal- pably incompetent evidence, as to indicate that the indictment resulted from prejudice, or was found in wilful disregard of the rights of the accused, the court should interfere and quash the indictment. Very respectable authorities intimate than an indictment should be q^uashed when it appears that it was found by the grand jui-y without adequate evidence to support it, or when the grand jury permitted the rules of evi- dence to be violated, (Dodd's Case, 1 Leach, C. L, 184; Peu- ple V. Ristenblatt, 1 Abb. Pr. 268;) but if this were permitted it would resuit that the court would become the tribunal to indict as well as the tribunal to try the accused. �In State v. Froiseth, 16 Minn. 298, it was conceded by the attorney general, and the court concurred, that where the grand jury required an accused person to be brought before them and testify touching the accusation the indictment should be set aside, although in that case the indictment was not found solely upon the testimony of the accused. In The People V. Briggs, Albany County Oyer and Terminer, Oshorne, J., (MS.,) held that an indictment should be quashed where the defendant's wife was called as a witness against him by the grand jury, for the reason that this was a substantial error, and it was doubtful whether the grand jury would have found an indictment without the wife's testimony. These authorities are in point here. �Tbe motions to quash the indictments are granted ����