The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1902-09-11
HALL v. THE STATE.

4
! the Circuit Court OF Marshall
]. Organization of grand jury; whe
4 no Illegally shown.-In the organizatio
| of grand jury. the record discloses tina
| thu number drawn to serve on said gran
| jury was eighteen, that only fifteen o
| said number appeared, and that b.
reason OF an excuse allowed by the court
| one other was not required. to serve,
| reduces the number to fourteen, ant
| thereupon the court ordered six person'
to be summoned. and the record recite'
that three named persons were elected
to serve - grand jurors" 1t can not bt
said that such grand jury was Illegally
organised.
q Pleas IN, abatement; sufficient there.
of-In a criminal case, a plea in abate-
ment to the indictment, which AYERS that
while the grand jury which preferred said
indictment was engaged in the examina-
tion and Investigation Of the pending case
the solicitor of the court expressed to
them the opinion that the evidence before
them was sufilcient to warrant them in
finding an indictment, and that 1t was
their duty to convict the defendant, and
that this influenced the grand jury. with
out which. no indictment would have been
preferred land further,( that while said
grand jury was In session and SO engaged
IN the investigation OF said case, the
judge Of the court at the request OF the
Grand jury appeared before them and
advised them as TO the law of the Of
fsnse With which the defendant was
charged. 10 insufficient and subject to de-
murrer the matters averred therein not
being proper subjects for plea in abate-
msnt.
Z Indictment; motion to quash.-A mo-
ton to auash an indictment, upon the
ground that the solicitor of the circuit
court consulted and advised the grand
jury while examining and investigating
the case against the defendant. to return
an indictment against him. and that the
Judge of the coudt pending such investi-
cation appeared before the grand jury
at their request and instructed the grand
jury a. to the law relating to the offense
with which the defendant was charged.
10 properly overruled, 1t not being COM
petent for ths grand jurors or any per-
son eonvsrsant with the facts to disclose
or testify as to what .transpired in the
grand jury room pending an examine
ton and investigation of the crime alleged
to have been committed.
T. Seduction; plea of autre fois acquit,
under an indictment for rape no bar
On the trial OF an indictment for seduc-
ton a plea which sets up former ac-
quittal of the defendant under an in
dictment for rape, which charged rape
upon the same girl whom he 10 charged
with having seduced. and further aver
ring that there was only one act Of
Illicit intercourse between ths girl and
the defendant, and that act was involved
IN the charge Of rape upon which he was
tried and convicted, and that the same
act 10 involved In the charge of seduction
for xvntnA hA 0ad IN tha Y1rAaant
case. 10 insufficient az bar to the further
prosecution Of the defendant under an
indictment for seduction.
g. Seduction; admissibility OF defen-
dants testimony upon O former trial for
rape.-On trial under an indictment for
seduction, the stenographic report of the
defendants testimony upon his examina-
ton 40 q witness In his own behalf. on
o trial under an indictment charging him
with rape, which the same act upon the
same girl was involved. as Ia involved in
the present case. Is admissible In evil
dsnce; IL the corpus deficit Is otherwise
shown: and 1t is not objected to the in
PRODUCTION Of such testimony that the
confessions and admissions made by the
defendant therein were not voluntary.
G. Seduction; proof of corpus deficit
The corpus deficit may be shown by cir
cumstances; and on trial under an in
dietment for seduction, where the defen-
dants admits in open court that he had
intercourse with the girl who had just
arrived at the age of puberty, that the
defendant at the time was her teacher
and by persuasive insinuations repre-
scented to her, while fondling her, that he
would be true to her and would not be-
tray her, when taken in connection with
the innocence and ignorance of the girl,
80 to the Illicit relation, the question Of
the proof Of the corpus deficit Is one for
the jury; and such facts sufficiently es-
tablished the corpus deficit to authorize
the admission OF the defandnt's testi-
mony upon the former trial under an
Indictment for rape. involving the same
act with the same girl.
7. Seduction; charge of court as to
temptation.-On q trial under an indict-
ment for seduction, a charge which as
sumes that any word or act done by the
defendant for the purpose of entiolng the
girl to the doing OF the act complained
of amounts to a temptation, is invasive of
the province Of the jury, and Is properly
refused; since whether such act or word
did or did not, is a question for the jury.
8. Charge of court upon the effect of
the evidence properly refused.-A charge
of the court upon the effect of the evil
dence Is invasive of the province OF the
Jury and Is properly refused.
O. Seduction; charge of court 10 jury
On a trial under an indictment for seduc-
ton, where the charge given by the court
ex nero motu involves the suggestion to
the jury that the judge thought that GER
tain acts of the defendant were done for
the purpose of giving him an opportunity
to excite in the girl, upon whom the crime
was committed. evil thoughts, Is errone-
GUS and properly refused.
10. Same; same-On trial under an
indictment for seduction, a charge is erro-
neous which instructs the jury that III
the woman Is examined as witness and
the testimony outside of hers and in
dependent of hers Is SUFFICIENT to estab-
lish the defendants guilt. then you may