UNITED STATES ». PABRINGTON. 847 �1091 ; Hindekoper v. Cotton, 3 Watts, 56 ; or what was the issne and what the testimony of witnesses before a grand jury in a given case : Thomas v. Commonwealth, 2 Eobinson, (Va.) 795 ; State V. Offutt, 4 Blatçhf. 855; State v. Fasse», 16 Conn.457; Commomvealth v. HUl, 11 Cash. 137; State v. Broughton, 7 Iredell, 96; Way v. Butterworth, 106 Mass. 75; Burdick v. Hunt, 43 Ind. 381. �The rule which may be adduced from the authorities, and which seems most consistent with the policy of the law, is that whenever it becomes essential to ascertainwhat bas traûs- pired before a grand jury it may be shown, no matter by whom ; and the only limitation is that it may not be shown how the individual jurors voted or what they said during their investigations, (The People v. Shattuck, 6 Abb. N. C. 34; Commonwealth v. Mead, 12 Gray, 167,) because this cannot serve any of the purposes of justice. �It would be difficult to find a case which more forcibly illustrates the good sense and justice of the rule which per- mits a free disclosure than the present. It is patent that the grand jury permitted themselves to be influenced by the appeals and arguments of a zealous advocate, by hearsay testimony, and by testimony which the law prohibits, although they were advised to the contrary by the district attomey; and it seems much more probable that they were led to their conclusions by prejudice and undue zeal than by calm and fair delibei-ation. If there was evidence which authorized an indictment, it was so blended with and obscured by the mass of hearsay and otherwise incompetent testimony that it was impossible for the jury to distinguish it; and it would be expecting too much of a body, untrained in judicial investi- gation, to believe that they could discriminate intelligently between the competent and the incompetent evidence, so as to accord due weight to the former and be uninfluenced by the latter. �It is not intended to suggest that whenever incompetent testimony is received by a grand jury its reception is such errer or irregularity as to vitiate their finding, nor to hold that the evidence upon which an indictment is found shall ����
