Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-12-30
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
Opinions of the supreme Court of the
state of Tennessee, at ia ksOn, April
Term,
Isaac, Ia slave,) vs.. The State.

OpniOnS OF IEle supreme Court of the
State of Tennessee, at ia ksOn, April
Term, 1850
Isaac, Ia slavej vs.. The State
The prisoner convicted in the Criminal Court
Of Memphis, of the murder of a white man named
Gideon BOwder and sentenced to be hung. From
this judgment an appeal in error was presented to
this court.
OF the several errors assigned the only one
thought necessary to be considered for the present
arises out of the action of the Court in regard to
one Of the jurors.
After the full number of twelve jurors had been
regularly tried and elected aud were about to be
sworn, w. W. Ritchie, one of the number, refused
repeatedly to take the usual oath on the ground as
was pretended. of conscientious scrupes in regard
to capital punishment And thereupon the other
eleven jurors were sworn, and Richie was ordered
by the Court to be imprisoned one month and was
accordingly committed to Jail forthwith.
There is some confusion and apparent contradic-
ton in the statements in the bill of exceptions as 10
what followed but from the whole record the
probable truth of the case is. that after or dernp
the juror, Richie, to jail, the Court further Or
dered that he be discharged as juror" and di-
rected the Sheriff to summon a panel of nineteen
jurors by next morning. On the next morning be-
fore the return of said panel of jurors. and after
fifteen hours of imprisonment the Sheriff announc-
ed that Richie was then willing to be sworn as
Juror Upon this information Richie was brouoht
sworn a juror in the case. The Attorney GeLe-
raj thereupOn challenged him for cause but the
Court Overrulcd the challenge to which the cxcer-
ton taken on behalf of the State The Court
again ordered him TO be sworn as a Juror. to
which the prisoner then objected but the direction
was oyerrued. and said Richie was then sworn,
and served a juror in the trial of the prisoner.
This exercise of power which in orn,
opinion, cannot be sanctioned.
That the Court possessed the discretion and
power, before the jurors were sworn to discharge
one of the number upon his persisten. refusal to
take the oath, admits, perhaps. of but little doubt
The question however is not whether the discharge
OF Richie was proper under the circumstances, or
not.
Be this it nay, we think it clear that after
having been actually discharged the court had no
power TO recall him and force him upon the pris-
oncr, or even upon the State Without the consent
of the prisoner, and likewise as we incline to think
of the Attorney General he could not have been re-
lnStated as a competent juror in the case The eff
feet OF the discharge of Richie, necessarily was so
far as respects the power of the Court over him to
place him in exactly the same situation as if he
never had been elected as juror in the case
In principle. the might as well have ordered
a bvstander never put to the prisoner to be sworn
juror
On this ground, without noticing other objections
the judgment must be reversed. and new trial
granted NCKr,vFy
Test: NJ D. WEIGH, Clerk