Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-12-14
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
September Term - Knoxville,
1870.
Joseph ID. HeiskelI. Attorney GEN
eral and Reporter.
wv. no
Williams vs.. State.

SSACRAA - AAOAHhACAAs AttOEACy UGH
eral and Reporter.
No. B3.
Williams vs. State
Observation-Disclosures need not Stdte.-Yenue need
not be ayerred in 81 indictment for capital e.
fence. Code 5;125 1t Is sufficient if the proof
show the offence to have been committed in
the county.
Law CoURr OF CHATTANOOGA Grand Jurors
IN Circuit C0tTt.-The act establishing the special
coort at Chattanooga does no. disquslify citizens
of toe districts, over which it has jurisdiction,
from serving as jurors, grand or petit, in the Cir
ISDIcrMESr-M,trdsr ia first degree.-An indict-
ment for murder in the first degree need not use
the words murder in the first degree. Il 1t use
the descriptive words essential to the oense ID il
good.
sAME-F6Fpl of-Form of indictment held sufici-
emf.
From Hamilton.
This was an Indictment in the Circuit
Court of Hamilton county, tried before
w. l.. Adams, j.
The Indictment was in these words:
State of Tennessee, Hamilton county,
Circuit Court, February Term, 1865
The grand jurors for the State, upon their
oath, present that Henry Williams alias
Andrew Williams alias Andy Williams,
colored, on the fifth day of November,
1867, in Hamilton county aforesaid, did
feloniously and of his malice aforethought
assault Adolph Deutcb, and then and
there willfully, maliciously, deliberately
and premeditatedly, did kill and murder
the said Adolph Deutch, by striking and
beating him on, over and against the
head, with a stick, club or bludgeon, in
the hands of the said Henry alias Andrew
alias Andy Williams, thereby inflictiDg
upon the head of the said Adolph Deutck
mortal wounds and injuries, of which he
then and there died, against the peace and
dignity of the State.
A. A. HYDE, Attorney General.
Nelson, j., having been of counsel for
the prisoner on former appeal, did not
sit in this case.
A. Caldwell, VIM. P. Wa.hburn and
Jas. r. Cooke were assigned to defend the
prisoner.
. An elaborate brief Of Nelson, j., for
the prisoner was filed by the counsel, in
which he contended that the indictment
was bad under Code s. STA to 5,13S,
which were intended to simplify and not
to destroy indictments. That the sections
were suggested by 7. Geo. 4: and IA and
10 Wet. quoted in Sharsw. B. Blk. 4. p
300 n. Legislature cannot abolish indict-
ments, Const. q. S. Art. V. of Amend
ments; Const. of Tenn. Art. /, S "A; Oh.
]. Marshall in Burr's trial, BOG, 309
Forms existing when these constitutions
were formed must be preserved, Oh.
Or. Law, 16S to ia, m. Shaw. 81. Com.
Blk 4, p 30l TO 306, and notes.
Law Court of Chattanooga, Code, 5 122,
hsd jurisdiction of 4th g. l4th civil districts
of Hamilton county, Extended by 1868 C
80, and 8, p 80, 40, to (perhaps) parts
of 9th and 18th. Juris LECTION civil and
criminal; Code, 4, 272to4,275 Nonresident
of said districts Shall be indicted in Cir
cult Court, unless offense committed out
side of districts. Offense must be charged
and proved to have been done outside of
this jurisdiction, and grand jury must
come from beyond jurisdiction. Citing
Mcbride VS.. State, 10 Hum. 615; Morton
VS.. State, 2 Kings Dig. 1926; IIite VS..
State, 9 Yer. 357, Code 4, 277-S.
As a common law Indictment it is de-
fective; Omits "willfully" Oh. Cr L. 751
N. Assault should be charged: ''did make
an assault" Word 'feloniously'' omitted in
the charge of killing; The words ''stick,
club or bludgeOn" are in the distinctive.
The length and depth of the wound not
stated; whether he died instantly or after
languishing not stated: nor words, $50
defendant did feloniously kill and murder.
2 Ch. Or. L. 4S7 TO 492, top 734 10 739
m. Whiteside vs. State Cold. lS3.
Not statutory because it Should charge
that the killing was done felOniously, will
fully, deliberately and premeditstediy.
Dogs nOt'cOnCludG against the form of the
statute.
Heiskell, Attorney General for the
State, insisted thatft was not necessary
to show by the record that the grand jury
came from without the jurisdiction of the
law court. State vs.. Anderson 10 Yer
523; Bonds vs State NJ. Il Y. 143, 147.
Want of qualification must be pleaded
in abatement, State vs. Bryant 10 Yer.
527; State VS.. Duncan 7 Yer. 271; Ben
net VS.. State NJ. & Y. 1873, 135; Meigs'
Dig. p. 3S3.
There is no exclusion of jurisdiction,
unless the Offense is committed by citi
zen of the special jurisdiction.
oRNION.
At the February term, 1868, of the
Circuit Court for Hamilton county, sitting
at Harrison in said county, Andy Will !
Jams was indicted for the murder of
Adolph Deutch. The indictment charges
that the prisoner did feloniously, aud of
his malice aforethought, assault Adolph
Deutch, aud then and there Eilfully, ma
liCiously, deliberately and premeditatedly
kill and murder the said Adnlph Deutch,
alleging that the murder was committed
in Hamilton county. At the February
term, 1870, the defendant was tried by a
jury of Hamilton county, and found
guilty of murder in the first degree. At
ter motion for a new trial was dis
charged, defendants counsel filed the fol-
lowing reasons III arrest of judgment:
First, That the record does not show,
that the Indictment was found and re,
turned into court by grand jury, duly
elected and empannelled according to
law. Second, That the record does not
show, that the grand jurors were selected
and empsnnelled, from that portion of
Hamilton county over which this court
has Jurisdiction. Third, That there Is no
averment in the indictment, that the muir
der was committed in that portion of
Hamilton county, over which the court
has jurisdiction. Fourth, That there are
no sufficient charges in the Indictment 10
constitute murder in the first degree.
Fifth, That the offence of murder in the
first degree is no! charged in the indict-
ment. The reasons in arrest of judg
ment having been Overruled, the court
pronounced judgment of death upon the
defendant. From this judgment defend
ant appealed 10 this court, and rendered
his bill of exceptions. The first question
is, was there error in the court, IN over
ruling the motion in arrest of Judgment
We think not. As to the first reason as
signed, the record, shows, that the sheriff
returned into court the writ of venire s.
cias executed upon twenty-five good and
lawful citizens of Hamilton county, and,
that from the jurors 81 summoned, the
court proceeded as the law directs, TO Sc
lect and empannel the grand jury. This
is all regular. As 10 the second reason
the record shows that the grand jury was
composed OF good and lawful citizens of
Hamilton county. The words ''go9d and
lawful Smen comprehend every neces-
sary qualification in such case prescribed
by law. Bonds The State. Mart and
Yerg. 146. The State Anderson, 10
Ycrg. 523. But, it was not neces-
sary to aver in the Indictment
that the offence was committed in that
portion of Hamilton county over
which the court had jurisdiction. Code
$ 5. l2j. 1t is only necessary, that the
proof shall show that the uffense was
committed within the jurisdiction of the
court. This fact is fully shown by the
proof. Besi1es-the act, establishing q
special Common Law and Criminal Court
at Chattanooga with jurisdiction over
Civil districts Nos. and Il, does not dis
qualify the citizens of those districts from
being competent jurors, either grand or