Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-08-15

min
laus NJ Hughs, Attorney 0t e ii'h 'uoiciai Of
cult -. ..;-. - -. ,,-e. -,
Tat Charles and then the slave of John Davidson
on the first day July eighteen and sixt
son. free white woman and then did unlavfu
and fsonousy earnsly know her. the said Louisa Watson
that it charges 'that Charles DavidscB negro on &C. Il
tbs the asisndant plead NO guilty on shs saI
ceedng August term 1895 said court the following ent
STATE TENNESSEE cHARIrs DAYIDsoS.-Iadicaeat4 4
Rope This day Robert l. Caruther Attorney Gener
in this for the purpose Of sending up bsore the rsnS
Jury additional count TO said Indictment and the
Then follows the record what appears original in
S IN Jncn ~ Una. o9aTlss pssidson
charging the crime Of substantially the charged
This indictment signed Robert l. Csruthers At
sorney General pro a and indorsed additional count
Jamson Prosecutor" Itis also indorsed "a true bill Ma
thaniel TMoore foreman Of the Grand Jury and the
same day. tow 4b of September the following entry ap
This day came as we'll the Attorney General as Tho efen
dant and the additional count in this indictment being resd
TO and in bis bearing be pleads thereto that he not gull
At the following January term 1866 of said Court the do.
ndant arragned and tried upon both indictments the
en Upon the trial Of the case the Circuit Judge
cd the jury that the second oonnt which charges the
be had consequently the conviction was upon the rst
what is denomnaod in the charge of the court the third
oOnVicton be sustained as to the Indictment found at the
May term 1865 We may briefly state 1st The Who'll
returned into court at that term 3D. It fails to show that
any Grand jury vas elected mpsnso srgrn charged at
3D. Il fails to show that there wass PfOscor or that any
s s;, W. % mol ss ,S. & q: p Rr'S5 !.
tried for criminal Oense arragned before court having
upon the merits and coHrctd he shall not b entitled to
trial. Judgment reversal Of the
there stated We eeanRo give statnte Of this
character greater latitude of than warranted
the plain and obvious import of the words of the statute
Did the Legislature thereby that aperson who had
eopTetd should not be snd To new trial M or AZ
Of Judgment because Of the existence Of all the
section We believe the Begss
turr could have intended desired effect change rsd
cal In the criminal practice Of the State that the Language
The language is shall entitled etc any of
the following and mus be construed though 1t
obvious meaning of Language employed and,
consequently if more than Of causes mentioned exists
and such would bu for the provisions of that section
entite the party trial Judgment
relief Notwithstanding provisions Of that section But
will be Observed all the for of the judgment
this case, in that ec The
stated in the 9th paragraph is that he clerk omitted
body in the record ths sea 1t had already been hold
b this court in the of Conner the State 4th Yer
1877 4O 14 citing Gornwell the State NJ Yer 1i and
Mcclure the State LIST Yer 2Os that was not necessary
that the rnGs be spread upon the minutes of the court
1t enough if the record showed the return Of the
cos selections of the Grand Jury neither of which is
shown by this record Finally the record shows that the in
found, az the May 1865 subsequent
IL
again returned by the Grand Jury oherwie
may be withdrawn leave Of the court and
and returned sgain
the show the fact and the failure do is such
section 52 before to- especially if it
was ndorsed "a true bill before it was withdraw and at
trial upon the merits made evidence
the fact that the indictment had been returned into
by the Grand Jury but it be regarded evil
dence that has been properly returned the second time
Bat not Of any authority for Withdrawing an
indictment of the subsequent the at
which has been found and recOmmittng it different
otherwise, and believe such be found.
The bill Of Indictment, entitled OF the August term 1865
be considered an OF or additional count
to the indictment found at the preceding ter but it
court all required by law
this The record fails show that any resacias
paneled, charged that court. 1t
wholly " to show the appointment of any foreman of the
the Grand else entered upon the
minutes Of the court 1t a to show the appointment ofthe
thorZed the appointment The act Of 1852 which provided
that the failure of the record to show that the who
signs the indictment Attorney General pro appon
ted not not to have been 70 the
Code but in eighth section 5242
adopted If the only the omis
that section be found in this record
to an Judgment this cause would be
entitled to an arrest of the Judgment but We have already
where all or more than one OF the causes
J1dge GsTTt6ers: IN dses.ing tae opinion q & ns court
said 1T must De .nat the court wouIo hot
this officer necessity reg
uar appointment" But in that the indictment
by regular Attorney General and Attorney
General merely appeared in the prosecution of the
And also be remembered that decided
under 1882 which declared the failure of the record
appointment of the pro But
scarcely have for any such presumption
for day upon which the Attorney General
asked withdraw the Indictment the record shows
Attorney General appeared in this But
be said must the record in and in
fact it was the Attorney General pro To this
we can only ascertain that there fact Attorney
pro by presumption-and when presumpons become
they arise No judgment pronoun
upon either Indictment If the question TO be determined
presented In this record, would feel
deny the application and the
the law but to pronounce judgment upon
this verdict the language of Judge Tury in tho Of
Hite the State 9th YER we would feel thet de-
stroyn great and fixed principles of criminal practices
necessary tc the protection OF the liberty and life Of tho
citizen.
The judgment OF the Circuit Court win be affirmed, and the
prisoner will be remanded the jail of Maury county to be
kept custody until he be again indicted for the ons
or discharged by the Circuit Court Of said county.
the have taken Of this case, ii is
sary determine whether not the description of the den
indictment is sufficiently correct TO
authorize Judgment the verdict but
perhaps the better practice would be to state in the
indictment his present status well the status he
pied theo the oense alleged to have been committed
HAWKINS Judge.
Attest: J. G. FRAZER, Clerk.