The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-02-15
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Jetaumy Term, 1879.
Reported Weekly by Jenkins
AZ Little, Attorneys at E.aw.


WIN. ID. OANhNAh
III VS..
rs The STATE OF MISS }
ID Cavanah was indicted in Lowndes Coun
J. ty Circuit Court for murder At the tra
IS after the plea of not guilty had been enter
d cd special 0saire WIS demanded. Their,
b was no jury box prepared as contemplated
. by S2759, Code 1871. 10 aid him in max.
f ing selection Of names The Sheriff resorted
Q to the assessment book from which he pre-
, pared list of persons 10 he summoned,
and handedit to his deputies with directions
to summon those persons and any other
whom the Deputies might meet with who
were suitable. Those summoned were on
the list then made with few others as in
structed by the Sheriff. 1t is not claimed
that there was any corruption or partially
i'll summoning but that the Sheriff should
prepare list and that he should have gone
out and summoned Unfortunately from
the body of the county The Circuit Court
refused to quash the 0e1Sire facjas.
A change of 0elUe was asked on the ground |
of undue prejudice in the public mind the |
prisoner could not have fair and impartial |
trial. Affidavits and counter-aflidayits were
submitted to the Court on the application.
The latter were, on motion of counsel for
the State, withdrawn. The defendant
sought to impeach the testimony of wit
ness by showing what he had sworn to OH
former investigation which was in writing.
1t Is assigned for error that the Court
permitted counsel for the State, to read in
argument an essay of his own duelling, and
certain extracts from Sabine on Duels and
Duelling.
The motion for new trial is based on !
the fact that one of the parties indicted {
and tried as party to the killing was acqult- c
ted and that his testimony can be had for
the prisoner on another trial and will |
change the verdict rendered and cause his
acquittal.
CAMPBELL, J. q
Hel- r
l. The Circuit Court did not Ell in retus- d
ing to quash the geair1 .titcj08 So far as >
The record shows it was ordered and exc q
,uted properly; it was not improper for the y
Sheriff to prepare list Of persons TO b. II
from the assessors book he had h
he right TO prepare the list III any mode
bought best by him. being impartial, in
obedience to the command OF the writ. To II
ZEE whether he obeyed the gcn&jd tdcjas in n
cod faith and with fairness, we must look l.;
the result and not to the means Of reach .
ng 1t except as those means may Lave af- =
ected the result. We think it was a wise o''
of the Sheriff to prepare Il list ",
names to facilitate the summoning OF the ~
equired number, and it is not charge that ~
e had any other object in view ~
2. Looking to the evidence on the subject ! ~
e tail to discover any ground to believe NJ
lat there existed in the public mini that
undue prejudice" meant by the statute, i. e. Mt
lch as would be likely to be so felt in the AZ AZ
Try box as to prevent The accused from AZ
aving fair and impartial trial by the evil LIZ
ence and the law. III
3. There is no error in the several rulings ~
7 the Circuit Court upon questions of eyi- 'A'
'nce. If it was the purpose Of counsel
+ the prisoner to lay the foundation tor con- Eli
ldlctlng witness by the testimony he
I'd given on former investigation, which | w
as IN writing, that written testimony
ould have been presented to the witness, Ii,
I'd 1t was not proper to ask himsif he Ind ~;
testified without allowing him 10 inspect Go'
e written testimony oC'
4. 1t is a just supposition that counsel l rs
+ the State was lead to his course OF arga- VI.
emit by reading an essay on duelIing IRON o. o.
e ev. dence, Of the course OF the prisoner va
his corresp Jndence with the deceased, and va
e proceeding to post him" afterwards ,'I I
d we think 1t Was not inappropriate 4 H.
'ge discretion in the matter OF relevancy ""
argument of counsel must be exercised VI
the Circuit Judge. 1t is a very delicate ~,
ty for he must be cautious not unduly 10 AK AK
ridge the liberty of counsel and in re- ~ ~
aiming him within proper limits, must . ,SG
deny him full liberty of his di5ehdrglng ~.
important duties in enforcing his views I l,Gt
the law and the evidence. wa
His illustrations might be as various as m ,,,''
the reasons Of his genius; his argumen- ,,,''
ion us full and profound as his learning ,.[r.
make it, and he may if he will give play ~. ~
his wit, or wing to his Imagination. =" ~,
. We do not think the ground for new 1i['
i is of itself good. 1t is an important q, l.
nent, and may be entitled to much .iio
ght as one circumstance i'll determining | So
lotion for new trial. but it has no high I,iI
character than this. In some cases it "Itu
lid be more persuasion than in others In -
,a,e is it sufficient to entitle a party to kay,
Nv trial. Each case must be determined u'o
its circumstances, and the new tIial / ~
lted or refused according to the view oi IL
N of whole evidence in connection with -
evidence Of the acquitted party now e'o, a.
lie competent IFS Il witness for the other VI +
he new trial was properly refused IL,
ffirmed. SI,J'