Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-05-02

JUDGES-SAM MILLIGAN, JAMES c. SHACKELroRD.
AND ALVIN HAWKINS.
THOMAS Il. Caldwell, Attorney General and Re-
porter
THOMAS GRANT rs. THE STATE.
The plaintiff in error indicted in the Circuit Court
Of Franklin county its July term, 1860 for assault
with intent kill and murder At the November term
Of the court the Attorney General with the assent of the
court, dismissed the indictment far it charged the
defendant with committing assault with intent TO
der, and the defendant submitted to the mercy of the
court as the charge of assault and fined thir
ty-ve dollars and adjudged pay the of the pros
ccuou which action Of the the defendant except
ed, and has presented appeal TO this court We are
unable 70 discover any substantial distinction between
this and the of Britain the State 18th Hump
1872 That case like this an indictment for an AS
sau with intent 10 commit murder in the first DEGREE
In that the Attorney General with the assent of the
court entered noc prosequi the felony and there
upon the defendant submitted to the and was fined
from which judgment be appealed. In this the At
torney General with the of the court dismissed the
indictment far 1t charged the defendant with COM
hitting assault with intent to murder, and thereupon
the defendant submitted the mercy Of the to
the charge Of assault and was fined.
In one case the Attorney General entered noIc PROF.
.gu the felony and in the other he dismisses the
Indictment far charged the defendant with an as
aut with intent to murder, and this is the only difference
between the In this the held that
the effect Of the ROLE oeg"i discharged the defendant
altogether from the accusation and think the reason
ing Of the in that applies with force TO
the under consideration than Il did TO that
In that the Ho proseYNj was only to the felony
while in this case the indictment far it charged
the defendant with committing assault with intent to
murder dismissed-the indictment charged nothing
further therefore by the very OF the dismissal the
Indictment far ii charged the oeterdont with Of
tense, was dismissed But II is argued al this done
under an arrangement between and the
delendaht were that go, doubtless the case, it
could MAKE no difference In the before referred
the court SAID the submission was doubtless made with
the distinct understanding Of The uense be intended f.
confess, nevertheless, there was no subsignr ndiet
nent sga'nSi hl TIE court could lwfuy give iudg
ment thai be he fued and Imprisoned"
In thar the Judge delivering the o,;n;o, AZ IT,
court, said: " l. would be pc ent perhar fr tba A.
torney General. with the of the cour IN ~
the word that charge malice and felonv leay;ng oD
such would charge the inferior oSense' and il
ted that is al thar intended 10 be done in his 80
We express opinion 10 the correctness of thai
tion but if it be that the words charging the so
nav be stricken and the accused held 10 answer Co.
such ofense the remaining words in the indic,nsn,
might charge and the ofense for which be had never
been indicted and such the intention in this case
the dismissal could be considered equivalent 10 IN.
fact of striking out-then will be seen that no words
are left imputng any ofense whatever.
The Judgment of the Circuit Court was therefore ero
and will be reversed.
The defendant will be discharged, and the State of Ten.