Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-12-11
SUPREME c0URF OPINION.
Knoxville TENNESSEE, slrrEMBrp TERN, l867.
THOMAS n coIDwrLL, ATTORNEY GENERAL ASD ErroHrrn.

THOMAS II. coIDwrLr, ATTORNEY osxrnAL AsD REPORTER
THE STATE Vs. SAMUEL E. RANKIN.
The defendant indicted IL the Circuit Court Of eeer
& st Its August Term 1885, for the murder
The indictment alleges the oepes was committed in the
county Of jefferson, on the let day Of June, 1865,
in (Which he tae defendant fled special plea IN bar
ary District Of East TENNESSEE 6e was Lieutenant in
Company B. Ninth Tennessee oaysry and in the
military service Of the United sssc5 subject to the ju
q the Military Courts ara General Courts Martial
o the laws Of the Unitse States for the punish
ment OF offenders against law who we're the military
o. tne United States aud that tsee vas h9a ana there
that on the 9th of October 1855 evidence 70 general
GER dated at Chattanooga, the l9h Of September 1860, a
General Court Martial was conveEe6 and sitting Chata-
nooga for the Military District Of Es5 Tennessee and the de-
upon charges specifications eaFgs said defendant with
the same Identical murder with sbci he i charged in this
Indictment and said civil and n-urrecon then cenn-
uing to exist in said District, aad said defendant ing
mStgToI nSt gy 70 "a 5is 9pd
sndant not guilty aud theFeuRen d konofapy sequt him
To this plea the Attorney General led demurrer upon
which action appears to have been taken BY the Court it
The Attorney General the stats aied replication to
the plea IN which 7, = alleged there y record of said sup
Pose9 asqnai ana II any such vac had the same
had during the continuance Of any War rebellion
and any such trial had the sans was had and obtained
by fraud and eollusion With The mfy authority aud that
pose and intent CT shielding deeadsnt from the rub
ment Justly due his crime, &C.
eF.
was sustained BY the Court and lie Attorney General al
lowed 70 NE another repeaton With BE- done, raysrsng
the allegations Of the plea Issue aud the auz
submitted 70 jury who rendered verdict in favor the de-
iendant Therefore the Cout pronounced Judgment the
defendant Be discharged &C. from which the Attorney Cen
eral fol the State has appealed il this Court
Various and interesting questions presented in
elaborate and able arguments bat IN the view taken
OF the case the main QUESTION. aad the which, In
opinion Is decisive Of the arises upon the demurrer
the defendant TO the replication filed by the Attorney
raj The demurrer reaching back the first defect in plead
ins Il Is insisted the matters alleged IN the plea taken
upon the demurrer do not constitute bar to this prosscu
ton.
The plea in substance j. .hst ~ defendant, ahe the
military service Of the United States and subject
cles Of charged tried and autted che muir
der With which be charged IN Till indctmeu By Court
Martial convened under the laws Of tie United States during
the existence Of a civil war aud taagrrscton
The COUNSEL for the defendant rifles upon the 9 section
Of an act OF Congress approved March ga 1863 conrng
jurisdiction upon the Court Martial try punish the de-
endant for the crime q murder The provisions OF which
are a. follows, t5wit THAT in time war instruction
or rebellion murder, asault and battery intent 10 kill
nansiauEhter mayhem. wcuHding by shooting with intent
70 commit murder robbery burglary rape assault
snd battery with Intent to commit rape aud larceny shall
ansable BY the sentence OF General Court Martial or
isry Commission, when committed BY persons VIC are
m he military service Of fa United States ana subject ~
we Aries % war and she TunishIHfn such ofen b
never oe less Than thos Inflicted By laws Of the Sts W
rieTy o. District IN which The offence may have been com
Upon the par, Of the state insisted that Congress ba.