Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1912-03-17
Judge Grace's Ruling
 In Case of John M. McVay

Powell Y. State, II Ark, 355.
 But, f is useless to multiply illus tra'ions or citations of authorities along this line. It has been h~ld :n so many case that both statutory and constitutional 1iglts and priv ilegas may be and are waived by mere failure to call attention to tha m 1t the time of ,rial that it would seem useless to waste time i'll argu- ing that what the defendant may te feld to have done by mere implica- tion from non active he may certain ly do by epres agreement.
 The Adjournment
 As to the objection based on the fact that this court adjourned from February Sth 70 Februarv 2Gth, and thf,t during the Intervening time 4 session of the circuit court was held ill Lincoln County, in the same cir cult and by ,he judge of this court, it may be said that:
 X circuit couit is superior court of general jurisdiction and has in ncrent power to adjourn it's st'inEs from time to time to suit it's own convenience. Such adiuorned sit 'ings are not distinct and .indepen- dent terms Of :he court, but continuation of the regular term; it being fiction of 'he law that the, whole term is to be considered as one day. It has been decided by the Supreme Court of California that a circuit court may adjourn over to a distant day beyond another term of che samc couIt in another county in the same circuit. This is the precise point in issue here.
 Am. & Eng. Enc of Law, Vol. 12, ?. 29S.
 People " An Ying, 42 Cal. D. IS.
 Our own supreme court has also decided this question: In GalbreT h V. Mitchell it was contended by counsel that the statute prohibited the court from adjoining beyond ehe time fixed for holding the next regular term in another county in the same circuit. But the supreme court held otherwise. saying:
 .sueh, we think is not the case" The statute twas intended to confer power upon the court in it's discre- zion to fix time for holding a spec ial term at any time between the ad- iournment of the term then being l held ard the next regular term of fhe same court.
 Pa!hreath V. Mitchell, 32 Ark, 27S.
 This decision was followed and ap- proved i'll:
 Davies Y. State, 39 Ark, 449
 State V. Williams, 4S Ark, 227.
 Street Reynolds, 63 Ark, D. 1.
 nillard V. State, 65 Ark. 4o4.
 See also:
 Dunn V. S.ate, ? Ark, 229.
 Tn Vaughn S1ate, 57 Ark. p. l.. the defendant was convicted of mur' der iii the first degree, and, on ap- peal the identical question was raised ia tEis case as to the legality of the adjourned term was presented ana decided. Our supreme court, by Cockrill C. J., said:
 "It has been decided that the cir cult court nay provide for specia' adiournment term to be held after the tme for holding the next regular term in another county of the clrc"l', and that adlourning the court to De given a day is a sufficient entry "pi on the record of an order for an ad- iouraed session.
 "As to he wther the special ses> slcn will i'll any instance lnterfei3 with the a1siness of regular tefhl of tha court in another county Is genera; question which must DC left to the sound discretion of enc trial judge"
 r. is settled, therefore, that the aa' iournment of his court from F'ebru- arv Sth to February 26th was III ac- cordance with law and the sessloh tendance With law and the sess''n beginning February 2eth was not d new term of court, but slmpiy contirue Son of the October ts' H.. It necessarily follows that the court had the p,wer and right 70 hold 1ha iury together from day to day oi'- ing the term until tEe case they W"t. summoned and selected to trf WIS e1sposed of. Counsel fer defaIa 'h' have not attempted to show any authority il support of thelr o'J 7c- ticn ard cannot find any.
 The Indictment
 Counsel fer the defendant h"Ne yerv earn asiIy urged and insls<ea "f- OF a number of exceptions based up on tie fact that the indictment caaTs- es the defendant directly as pr-n' cipai in the firs' degree-tha. 's