Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-02-09

DECIDED IN the Crlmlnal OOurt curing tue
past year by Judge Horrigan, and which
have been appesled to the April term Of the
Supreme Court for final adjudication.
PISTOL CARRYING.
The Gaze of the State Is. A. I. Wimberly
is where said Wimberly was iodicted for
carrying a pistol, and upon his trial he pre-
sented his commission as a special internal
revenue collector and agent Of the govern
ment, and it was in proof that he was merely
passing through the State on his way to
Washington City in the discharge Of his
official duty when arrested. The Court held
him guilty under the law and fined him $50
and fixed his imprisonment at sixty days in
the county workhouse, from which judgment
Wimberly appealed.
The case OF the State u.s. J. E. Terry, is
where Terry held special deputaiion from
Sheriff Athy, appointing him conservator
OF the peace, with power 10 make arrests,
etc, that said Terry was, when arrested,
10 look for stolen property. On his way
back he stopped at the grocery store
Of one Terrence McKenney, and while
there exhibited his pistols. The court
held in this case that there wss
but one offense in carrying Two
pistols, whereas the altorney-geueral had
preferred two bill. of Indictment. From
| this ruling of the Court the attorney general
appealed, claiming that each pistol was a
distinct carrying. The defendant, Terry,
appealed, claiming that he could not be con-
vic;ed for either carrying, as he was acting
under special deputation from the sheriff.
SELLING SEED COTTON.
The case of the State u.s. Solomon White
sides, is where the defendant, Whitesides,
was indicted for attempting TO sell seed.cot-
ion after dark. the cotton being his own. In
this case the Court ruled that the defendant
had no right 10 even attempt to sell his own
cotton, and that in this he committed an Of
Tense even though he did not succeed, and
6ued him The sum of S2s, from which the de-
PENDANT appealed.
AN EMPLOYEES EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS EN-
PLoYER.
The case of Charles Muller is where the
defendant was barkeeper for John Wendell,
who was indicted for retailing liquors on
Sunday. The State failed to make a case
| with the witness on the back of the indict-
| ment, and last resort summoned the de-
| PENDANT. When placed upon the witness
stand and questioned he refused 10 answer,
on the ground that being the barkeeper
| Of Wendell he could not answer the question
without determination. The attorney. gen.
eral pledged the State not to prosecute said
| defendant. He still refused 10 answer, and
thereupon the Court held that he must
answers and fined him $50, from which de-
PENDANT appealed.
| OUTSIDE TESTIMONY IN SUNDAY Law CASE.
The case of Jesse Page is where Page was
summoned to testify as witness against q.
E. Galloway, proprietor OF the Peabody
Hotel, for selling liquor on Sunday. Psge
refused to answer the questions, even after
.Lz ,IaI h. he
| general, that he should be protected on the
| ground that il it was an ofense 10 sell liquor
| DC Sunday, he who drank was portic<ps c,im-
inis. The Court held Psge in contempt for
not answering, and fined him the sum Of $50,
from which he appealed.
AN ATTORNEYS PRIVILEGE.
The case Of w. A. Wheatley, was where
said Wheatley wss summoned TO serve ~
| regular juror. He presented his license ~
| an torney, and stated that while he never
prsc iced in any of the courts, yet he at
| ended to all conveyances and suits before
| justices of the peace for his customers. The
Court held that he was not praciicing at
torney in that sense that would exempt him
| from Jury service, and fined him for refusing
to serve S25, from which he appealed.
CHALLENGING JURORS.
The case Of the State Us. George Rogers,
for petit larceny, is one in which the prison.
er, by his counsel, J. ]. Brooks objected 10
the State challenging perentptorily any juror,
| because the statute did not provide for any
peremptory challenges in a case OF petit
| larceny, hut said that 80 many challenges
| petit larceny, and in all grades above petit
| larceny. THIS objection the Court overruled,
| and allowed the State as many challenges as
| the State was allowed by express misde-
meanor The defendant was convictd and SEN
'enced for one year, and Appeals on the ground
given above. There seems to have been
an oversight on the part Of the lawmakers
| The statute providing for specified number
| of perem otory challenges in trials Tor all
grades OF crime below, and also fixes the
number in cases abov,, the grade of petit
larceny; aud thus petit larceny is left out
entirely, with no challenges allowed by
| statute.
The case of L. L. Gray was where said
Gray was indicted for carrying pistol.
| On the trial of this cause the defendant
challenged juror on the ground that he
was not householder or feeeholder, when
| the Juror stated ON oath that he
| was a married man, had lived in
| the county all his life, and now boarded
here with his family, but did not own any
| property. Another juror was challenged
Il on tue same gtOuuu \Ol not UciuS uoube-
| holder or freeholder), and stated that he
lived with his sister, who kept house, and
| who was over twenty one years old; that be
was not married, bat that he rented the
| dwelling house, and he and his sister kept
house. The Court overruled both objections,
and declared the Juror competent. He was
convicted, and appealed to the next term OF
the Supreme Court.
| FORFEITURE ON sUBPENA.
| The case of G. P. NJ Turner, attorney.
general, Us. 1.-THE State, is where Gen. Tur-
ner asked 10 take forfeiture on subpoena
where the party had been regularly subpe-
| mead By the sheriff as witness and did not
\ appear This motion the Court overruled,
aud held that the attorney general must
| show to the Court some reason other than a
mere absence. From this ruling Of the
Court the encouragement appealed.
There is but one appeal during this term
| in which
| LIFE is AT STAKE,
and that il the case of the Stale Us, Rob-
ert Wilson, convicted OF the murder of
F. B. Russell The DOLLY point in this
case made by the bill of exceptions as
filed, is whether or not there is sufi-
cient evidence to identify as Rssseps
property the bucket of lard which Wilson
had when shot by Russell, and that, if he
had committed no offense against Russell's
property, Russell was transgressor in ar
resting him Wilson, and he had no author
ity over him at the time he tried to prevent
his escape.
AMT1SRu RNrpC