The Forrest City times., 1891-07-10
ABSTRACT OF DECISION.
Prepared for the Gazette by c. P. HarnwcIl, of the Little Rock Bar.1 Abstract of Decision by Mir. Justice
 Hughes.

TIE circuit court of St. Francis county, at its last term, convicted Jim Debson, colored, of murder in the first degree, and sentenced him to be hanged on the 24th of June last. His attorneys appealed to the supreme court, with the following result: James Dobson vs. The State. The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree in the St. Francis Cir cult court, filed a motion i'll arrest of | judgment on the ground that the in dictment did not state facts sufficient to constitute murder in the first degree, which was overruled. and to which ap- pellant excepted. He also filed d mo- ton for Il new trial, which was over ruled, to which he excepted. lield There is nothing in the motion in ar rest of judgment, as the indictment states facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.
 The defendants motion for a new trial is as follows:
 | I.
 1 The court erred in permitting the iil- ing and requiring the defendant to plead to the second indictment filed herein, because the first indictment l filed herein was not set aside for cause before the case was submitted to the grand jury at the April term. 1891 and the second indictment returned on the 18th of April, 1891.
 | II.
 | Because the indictment filed herein on the 18th of April, 1891, was not re- turned bv authority of law m this: That the indictment returned against the defendent on the 22d of October, 1890. was not set aside and the case submitted to the grand jury for action before the indictment Seturned on | April l6, 1891, was returned by the sad grand jury on the Is of April, 1891
 III.
 The court erred in refusing to set aside the indictment returned by the grand jury on the 10th of April, 1891 on the defendants motion.
 | ".
 Because the court erred in requiring the defendant to go to trial at this term, and refusing the defendants s ap- plication for further time in which to prepare for his defense.
 l As to the first and second grounds. which are the same in substance. it is sufficient to refer to section 2l30, Mans 1 fields Digest.
 We do not think the court erred in everything objection number three. There was no error in the refusal of the court to postpone the trial to allow defendant further time to prepare for his trial, to which the fourth objection relates, because he had fully six months in which to prepare himself for trial. We conclude from all the proof ad- duced, that there is no evidence tend ing to show that the killing in this case was done in St. Francis county. For the want of sucl, evidence the motion for new trial should have been granted. and by reason of it's failure to establish the venue, the cause is re- versed and remanded.
 Of all things, this is the silliest con- clusion we have eyer noticed. We do not remember the evidence in detail, but the fact that the place of killing was clearly proven and we'll known, the fact that the indictment was found and the case tried in this county, and no objection being made as to venue, we are surprised that court of justice should take up such a flimsy excuse, and everything all other exceptions made by council, set aside the verdict and order new trial. The first trial cost St. Francis county $25O or $500, and the decision of the jury was in ac- cordance with the law and the evid- enceand met the approval of the public.