The Magnolia gazette. [volume] (Magnolia, Miss.) 1872-current, 1899-04-05
SUPREME COURT DECISION
FULL OPINION IN THE GARNER
MURDER CASE.
Decision OF he Lower Court Re.
versed and Case Remauded
for New Trial.

VI ehN @AiStSihC OOdAe VI NnlSSao-
sippi, the Gazette is enabled tc
lay before its readers the full
opinion of that tribunal in the
murder case against Thomas ".
Garner.
The opinion was handed down
Monday week by Chief Justice
Woods, and is as follows:
9133. GARNER VS.. STATE.
Circuit Court, Pike county; w.
P. Cassidy, Judge.
Nixon & Lotterhos and Will a..
Parsons for appellant; Wiley N.
Nash, Attorney General, for
State.
Tom Garner was indicted, tried
and convicted of murder and
sentenced to be hanged, from
which he appealed. al
WOODS, g. J.. Upon the en-
panelling of the jury, one S. c..
Boyd was examined upon his
voir dire touching his qualifica-
tons as a juror and swore that he
was not related by marriage or
otherwise to the deceased or to
the accused, and thereupon the
said Boyd was accepted as a ju-
ror by the State and the defend
ant. After the panel had been
completed and the jury specially
sworn and before any other step
had been taken in the cause, the
fact was ascertained by the de-
fendant that a son Of the said
Boyd had married niece Of
Scott Causey, the husband Of
Mrs. Maggie Causey, for the
murder of both of whom the de-
fendant had been indicted and
for the murder Of the latter was
then to be tried. The defendant
then moved the court for leave 10
Withdraw his acceptance of said
Boyd as a juror and to challenge
him for cause. The State form
ally admitted the facts set out in
the motion, but the court over
ruled the motion. The defendant
having not exhausted his per-
emptory challenges renewed his
motion and prayed leave to chal-
lenge Boyd peremptorily, but
this was by the court likewise
denied, and this action of the
court is assigned for error.
1t is important to note in this
connection that in empanelling
the jury the court sustained two
challenges for cause, made by
the State, to two venire men be-
cause of their relationship to the
defendant. Ono If these venire-
men testified that he was a fifth
cousin of the accused, and the
other testified that he had been
informed by some person that
day that he was a third cousin of
the accused, but that he himself
did not know whether he was any
relation of the defendant. AS
the prime object in empanelling
a jury. and especially in trials
for capital offenses. is to secure
a fair and impartial body to which
the momentous issue is to be
submitted, on the facts, the scru-
pulous regard paid by the court
to the right Of the people to have
a fair and wholly impartial jury,
in sustaining the challenges of
the State to the two venire- men
indicated is not open to criticism;
and if the challenge Of the de-
fendant to Boyd had been made
when he was examined on his
voir dire, we cannot doubt that
the challenge would have been
allowed. But, under the circum-
stances, the power of the court to
allow the defendant S challenge
to the accepted juror Boyd, is
clear, and should, we think,
have been exercised as asked.
The power existing in the court,
when the motion was made, TO-
set aside the defendant accept
ance ct the juror, and to allow
the challenge, either for cause, Or
pareH1 ptorily, following its forn-.
er rulings On the States chal-
Ienkes of tho two other venire-
men who were related, 81 sun-
posed in one instance, to be re-
lated to the accused, the defend |
ants motion should have been
sustained and he permitted to
challenge the obnoxious juror
who had been accepted in igno-
rance OF his relationship to thel