Case ID: ga_63/html/0165-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bleckley, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moore vs. The State of Georgia.
    1. It is of the essence of a demand for trial under §4648 of the Code, that it should be entered on the minutes of the court at the term when made, so that the prosecuting officer may know from the record that a trial must be had then or at the next term. If leave to enter be refused, the remedy is by writ of error (28 Ga , 64; 15 
      Ga., 286), and not by procuring an order at the succeeding term to enter the demand nunc pro tunc. Entries nunc pro tune are made for the purpose of supplying or perfecting a record of what the court did or assented to, not for the purpose of reversing its action in respect to what it refused to do or assent to. 19 Ga., 586.
    2. One indicted for a misdemeanor moved, at the term at which the indictment was found, to enter a demand for trial on the minutes. The motion was not granted, why does not appear. At the succeeding term an order was passed and entered upon the minutes, reciting the motion of the previous term and the fact that it was not granted, and giving leave to enter the demand nunc pro tuna, and declaring that unless the prisoner were tried during that teim, he should be acquitted and discharged. At both terms there were juries impaneled and qualified. At the third term the prisoner moved for an order of discharge, which was refused. As it does not appear that there was any jury at the third term, the refusal was not erroneous.
   Bleckley, Justice.