The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-05-31
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
APRIL TERM. lss2.
REPORTED WEEKLY FOR THE CLARION, By
ROBERT sHoTWELL, ATToRSEY-AT-LAW.
L. V. PACE.
VS..
THE STATE.

l.. v. PAGE
Tar s1ArE.
Appeal from the Circuit Court Of Chiekasaw
county, Hon. Juege-
Appellant was indicted in Circuit Court OF
/ Chickasaw county in swearing TO his report as
a school teacher for the month of March 1873.
i by which il appeared that there was an aver
/ age daily attendance in the school taught o.
him during that month Of l0t pupils. Ire IN
dieiment charged that by said report the de-
1 PENDANT reporied that John PruItt attended
/ his school l9 days during said month and that
/ Nelson Hicks attended 70 days in said month,
proceeding thus to enumsrate the names OF
/ number of scholars named IN the report and
/ the number OF days each was slated therein
/ to attend the school during the month Of
March and then continues, and the SAID l.
V Page did further report that he had an
average attendance during said month Of I0j
pupils when in truth and fact none OF the
above named pupils had attended san
school for the numaer OF days reported oy sala
Page during said month, aad when ID truth and
fact he had not had an average attendance dur
ing said month of los pupils. Un the trIal
OF the case the report was not produced The
Stafe introduced j. B. Gladney who testified
that he then and at the time OF making the
report by the defendant was Superintendent
of Education for Chickasaw county, and as
such had custody Of the report, that at the
time of the finding Of the Indictment, he had
given the report to one John NJ. Allen, VINO
was then District Attorney, to be used by hIln
in preparing the Indictment against defend
ant That since that time he had never seen
the report, and upon inquiring therefor OF
said Allen the latter referred him 10 the fore
man of the grand jury which presented tho
Indictment and by the latter he had /
been referred 10 the clerk who said /
it had not been delivered 10 him, and by |
the latter or some one else he had been referred
to the baileff to the grand jury and that he I
had written TO the latter who had removed /
from the county and had received no satlsfac- |
tory information. The witness further stated
that he had made diligent search among the
files of his office where the report was by law
required to be kept but could not find IT. The
State then introduced James Finley, District
Attorney, who testified that he succeeded Mr..
Allen in that Office and since he came into
that Office he had applied to his predecessor
for the report, who stated that he previously
handed it TO witness, but Allen was mistaken
in this, that he in fact had never seen the
report, that he had not nor so far as he knew
had Allen made any search for the report.
Upon this evidence of the loss the court
allowed secondary evidence to be admitted Of
the contents of the report.
On the part of the State the court instructed
the jury that if they believed from the evil
dence that any one or more of the pupils
reported by the defendant as having been in
attendance during the month of March did
not attend during said month or did not at
tend as many days as he had reported, then
they should find him guilty as charged"
The defendant asked the court to charge the
jury that to prove the offence charged, 1t was
necessary for the State to introduce the testi-
monv of two witnesses or one witness and
strong eorroborating circumstances, which
was refused but given the same after striking
out the word strong.
Lacey & Baskin, for appellant.
T. c. Catchings, contra.
COOPER, j.,
He'd
l. Although the indictment charged that
none of the children named therein had at
tended school as reported by the defendant it
was sufficient to warrant a conviction if the
proof showed the non-attendance of l or more
Of them. The instruction for the State was I
2. The court did not err in striking from the
instruction asked by defendant the word strong
1t is necessary that the coIroboration facts
shall be such that in connection with the evil
lence of the State witness, they shall overcome
The oath of defendant and the presumption of
his innocence
g. The snfficiency of the evidence of the loss
IF document that secondary evidence may be l
introduced of its contents is to be determined
b. great extent by the consideration of the
of the instrument, the length of lime c
since last seen, the probable place of its de- /
Dosit and tho habits of the custodian as to pre-
serving other papers and many other circIEm
stances too numerous to mention. It is mat t
er for the consideration of the court below, +
md its decision is entitled to great weight and >
n eases of doubt it should stand. The evil !
lence i'll this case did not sufficiently estab- =
ish the loss and the secondary evidence ;
ought not to have been admitted. Reversed y
md nets trial granted. .
(To be reported,l h