Case Name: State of Louisiana vs. H. H. Stewart
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1895
Citations: 47 La. Ann. 410
Docket Number: No. 11,703
Parties: State of Louisiana vs. H. H. Stewart.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 410–427

Head Matter:
No. 11,703.
State of Louisiana vs. H. H. Stewart.
It suffices that the defendant was in the custody of the sheriff on the date his appeal is made returnable to this court; the fact of his having previously broken jail being fully answered, thereby.
It is not a good objection to an information that it was filed during the pendency of an indictment, under which the defendant was being prosecuted at the time for the same offence.
That there is pending an information or indictment against the defendant for the same offence is no bar to another prosecution under a different indictment or information. There may be several indictments or informations pending in the same court, for the same offence, and against the same defendant. But one conviction or acquittal can be had. Nothing else operates as á bar to further prosecution.
The provision of the Constitution which declares that prosecutions shall be by indictment or information is nothingmore than permission to the State to prosecute by either mode at her option, unless she is restrained by statute. And the Constitution permitting either modejof prosecution, the case must stand just in the same attitude in which it would have stood before the lower court, had there been two indictments or two informations against the defendant.
Proof of the character of the deceased, and of threats communicated to the accused, is inadmissible until a satisfactory basis has been laid by proof of an overt act committed by the deceased; and, in order to constitute an act overt it must consist of a hostile demonstration of such a character as to impress upon the accused the immineney of the danger of loss of life or of great bodily harm.
On Application pok Reheaking.
Under Sec. 992, R. S., the service of a copy of the indictment must be made on the accused by delivering the same to him.
Domiciliary service is insufficient.
Watkins, J., Dissenting. — Personal service upon the accused of copy of indictment not necessary.
A PPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Natchi-toches. Coco, J.
M. J. Cunningham, Attorney General, aDd Phanor Breazeale, District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Pierson & Porter and W. H. Jack for Defendant and Appellant.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
The motion is grounded on the fact that the accused broke jail and became a refugee from justice during the pendency of his appeal, and that this is the equivalent to his abandonment of the «ame.
This statement is supported by an affidavit of the sheriff bearing date 29th of December, 1894, which is appended to the transcript in connection with the appellee's motion.
But it also appears, from another affidavit of the sheriff subsequently made, that the accused voluntarily surrendered himself into the custody of that officer, and was by him incarcerated within the four walls of the jail on the 31st of December, 1894, the date on •which his appeal is made returnable into this court.
That is all the law and the decisions of this court on the subject seem to require, and they appear to afford a complete answer to the motion; and it is therefore denied.