The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-06-09
CRAWFORD HAYS,
v. No. 3l04.

i y. No. 3lo4.
/ TIE STATE.
Error to Circuit Court Of Sumner County
Hon. VIM. Cothran, Judge
/ Plaintiff in error was convicted of rape.
and sentenced to Imprisonment in the Peni-
tertiary for life.
The Indictment charges that the prisoner,
with force and arms, in and upon one Niley
Edwards, female over the age Of ten years
. then being, violently and feloniously did make
an assault, and her, the said Niley Edwards,
then ana there foreibly and against her will
did then and there ravish and carnally know
Counsel claimed tina the word ''feloniously'
should have been repeated in connection with
'ravish, in the last part of the indictment
! Held
I I. The indictment should have charged that
the rarjshing feloniousIy done Tie word
feloniously, as used, only applies to the
sault
/ bly, ravishing" and does not include "felou-
/ iousiy;" but the statute was not intended to
define fully and clearly the otfense Of rape
/ but rather to fix the punishment.
/ If the words used in the statute do not in
view OF the nature of the offense and the recog-
nized principles of law, describe the otFense so
| as to convey to the m nd a full and clear idea
/ of every thing necessary to constitute the
crime in such case the full measure Of the
otfense must be charged by the Of such
words as are necessary and proper under es-
ablished rules to characterize it-Jesse csse
IS Miss. 100.
3. The Indictment is good as charging an
assault. The case viii be remauded for trial
on that charge; or the court may quash it,
chat new one may be found properly charg-
ing rape, Reyersed
Opinion by GEORGE, CT.
Fred Beall, and White s Bradshaw for
plaintiff in error.
t. c. Catchings Attorney General, contra.
LOUIS v Jones No. a4,o
TIM STATE. NO '4'o'
Error to Circuit Court. Wilkinson county.
Hon. J, B. Chrisman, Judge.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of murder
and sentenced to be hung.
In organizing the jury several persons
stated that they la d no scruples against the
infection of capital punishment; but that they
would not, upon crcumstantiaI evidence
alone, convict man to be hung, but would if
satisfied from such evidence Of the guilt Of the /
accused, render a verdict of gully and afix
the punishment to be imprisonment in the pen
itentiary for life.
At the instance of the District Attorney,
these persons were excluded from tile Jury
against the objection Of the defendant.
The evidence was circumstantial entirely.
The following instructions on behalf Of the
defendant refused
O. That although the jury may believe
from the evidence that the defendant threat
ened to take the life Of the deceased. yet this
is but a circumstance in this case, and is not
sufficient of itself to warrant q conviction, al
though it may not appear from the evidence
that any other particular person committed
the homicide
40 That although III. jury may believe
from the evidence that the defendant threat I
ened to take the life of the deceased yet this
is but circumstance in the case, and is not
sufficient Of itself TO warrant conviction, but {
is to be weighed and considered with all the 5
other testimony in the case
He'd /
l. The Court ruled correctly as to the com |
of jurors. The punishment for MUIR I
der is death, but the jury may FIX the penalty ;
at Imprisonment for life.
A juror who IS not willing to pronounces YER |
dict of guilty Of murder on sufficient circum- /
stantial evidence, TO be followed by The SEN
tence Of death, IN proper case, is incompe +,
tent.
, The 9th and 10Th instructions asked by Z
the defendant stated correct legal propositions,
and were exceedingly appropriate to the facts I
in evidence. 1t was error to refuse them.
Reversed. .
Opinion by CAMPBELL, J. .
D. c. Bramlett and T. V. holland for plain
if in error.
T. c. catchings, Atty Gen'l, Contra
". s. LAKE. 0
Error to Circuit Court Grenada county. j
Miller & JUST, of Louisville Ky, sued out e
IN attachment against W. J. AzIin. They gave
bond the statute requires before the attach c
nent issued, with ". s. Lake as security.
The attachment was levied on certain person
Il property for which third person interpos-
d claim. II is alleged that such proceed :
ngs were had as that the property was re- :,
eased, and the attachment was dismissed
The defendant Azlin then brought this suit :
N the attachment bond against Lake, the Sc
,urity, alleging the foregoing, and that the
aid Miller & JUST had not prosecuted the ?
4tta cbment suit with effect The declaration ! .
loes not aver that the attachment was wrong
ully sued out. Defendant fled a demurrer
which was sustained and the case dismis sed. a
plaintiff declining to amend =
Held Il
!. The bond is conditioned TO pay such dam
.ges as the defendant should sustain bv rea- e.
on OF the 1crongfR suing Of the attachment il
I was necessary to aver that it was wrong >;
ully sued out
The levy upon goods that were released up- Ie
n the claim of third person, and the dis
mission of the attachment, were not inconsigt- 50
Mt with the rightfulness of its issuance
affirmed q
Opinion by CAMPBELL, j.
A. Fl. Whitfield, for plaintiff in error.
]. NJ. Ellis, Contra. a,
ITO be reported se
NARY McCoRD EFT Al
VS.. No 3430 cl
ROBERT HUGHES EFT AL 70
Appeal from the Chaneery Court Grenada
ounty, Hon j. B. Morgan, Chancellor
Eliza 5. Cofman, deceased, was the owner te