Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1844-01-10
From The Camden Journal.

FROM Inc CdMde0 J0nTEdt.
v The STATE Us. Bennst Dozier.-Th
) Court of Appeals have reversed The dc
f cision Of the Circuit Court in this case
+ and granted the prisoner new trial
We understand that The principal groun
of appeal (and on which a new trial wa
oblained) is entirely new in our Court, ant
that it was urged successfully by Majo
Smart, in an argument of great ability
exhibiting great research aud legal know
ledge. Supposing his argument would bt
interesting to many Of our readers. we ap-
piled to Maj. S. for copy for publication,
which he has promised us, after the trial
of The prisoner.
We annex the opinion Of the Court.
APPEALS, DECEMBER TERM, 1S43.
The State uS. Bennet Dosier.
OPINION.
O'Neall jim this case, it is only ne
cessary 10 consider The prisoners third
sround, in arrest Of judsment-for thar
will avail hiM. In I'd Hale's Pleas of the
Crown, 260. it is said, 1.-THE uenire .lacias,
as all other processes of tia: Court (Ihe
Kings 3ench) issues in the Kings :lane
under the Seal Of the. Court and teste of
The C!. Justice. and always ought TO bear
the tesfe after The issue joined between the
King and prisoner" The description Of
process to compel The attendance ofjurors
in 20 Hawk. P c. book 2, c. al sec. l,
is very much like the course Of our prac-
lice in relation 10 The renlrc. He says, ''iI
is agreed that Justices of tho goal delivery
may have pannel so returned by the
Sheriff without any prccep' or writ; and
the reason given for it is, that before hheir
coming, they always made a general pre-.
cept TO The Sheriff on parchment, under
their seals, TO bring before them atthe day
of their sessions lwenly-four out of every
hundred" &c. ''to DO those things which
shall be enjoined them on the part of the
King" &c. This IS a general venirc for
the term. aud is so far, like ours. and is
only different, that il has no pannel an
nexcd, and ours, according To our jury
law has. II is 10 be observed, that this
general precept is under the seal of The
Justices; and without that would be bad.
The argument is therefore, Irresistible,
even from this authority, which is more
favorable 10 the State than any other, that
a summons of The jury by virtue Of pre-.
tended writ of venire, no! under seal, eau.
not be good. The jury law Of l79i, sec.
4, The manner of drawing jury, and that
pannel containing the names Of The ja
rors shal be annexed "to The writ Of venire
fdcias. 10 be issued for summoui.S the
said jurors" To be writ, il must he
under the seal Of The CourI. JAG. Die.
til. Wril.) And hence therefore, venIre
not under seal, is no writ, and is mol au.
lhori,y 10 the Sheriff to summon the jury.
What effect has the want Of a vcnire not
under seal, for both The grand and petit
Jury, upon a prisoner convicted of 4 cap
itaI felony! The case OF the People vs.
Mckay, Is. J. R 2l2, is full 10 The point,
that It'll good ground TO arrest The judg
menl. Independent of il, | do NOT per
ceve that there is room to doubt, the writ
for both jares are parts Of The record Of
conviction. IfIhey be nuili,es. it follows
that The prisol.er has uol been charged or
convicted by the finding Of good and law
full men of the vicinagc.
The prisoners motion is granted to ar
rest the judgment, and he is retnauded 10
the eoul of Kershaw. District, 10 answer 10
iiew bill ef Indictment TO be preferred
against him al The next term.
JOHN BELTON O'NEALL.
We concur
J.. s. Richardson.
Josiah J. Evans.
A. P. Butler.
d. L. Wardaw.
A true COPY: A. HEsDEMoNT,
Dec. %, 1913. Clcrk Court Of appeals