Case Name: Henry Young v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1873-12
Citations: 23 Ohio St. 577
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry Young v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 23
Pages: 577–579

Head Matter:
Henry Young v. The State.
.-1. Under the criminal code, where a defendant has been convicted and' sentenced on an indictment duly returned by the grand jury, he can not, on error, avail himself for the first time of the objection that the-record omits to show the impaneling of the grand jury. Such objection should be made in the court below, by motion to quash, before thei pleading to the indictment.
2. The failure by the court, on the impaneling of a jury for the trial of a cause to inquire, as directed by the statute (70 Ohio L. 170, sec. 11), whether either of them had served as a talesman within the preceding twelve months, constitutes no ground for error where it appears that the party complaining, though present at the time, made no objection to the omission.
3. Neither the affidavits filed in a cause, the certificate of the.clerk, nor the agreed statement of counsel as to what took place at a trial, can be made to supply the place of a bill of exceptions taken in accordance with the statute. And when matter is sought to be brought into the record by such means, it will, on error, be disregarded.
Motion for the allowance of a writ of error.
The plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced, on. an indictment for grand larceny, in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer county. Besides what pertains to the record proper, the transcript contains sundry affidavits, the certificate of the clerk, and the agreed statement of the counsel as to what took place on the trial. On the matter thus appearing, errors are assigned, as well as upon what appears in the bill of exceptions and the other parts of the record. The questions properly raised in the case are disposed of in the opinion.
D. J. Callen and George L. Converse, for the motion.
F. B. Pond, attorney-general, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
1. Under the criminal code, where a defendant has been convicted and sentenced on an indictment duly returned by the grand jury, he can not, on error, avail himself for the first time of the objection that the record omits to show the impaneling of the grand jury. Such objection should be made in the court below, by motion to quash, before pleading to the indictment.
2. The failure by the court, on the impaneling of a jury for the trial of a cause, to inquire, as directed by the statute (70 Ohio L. 170, sec. 11) whether either of them has served as a talesman within the preceding twelve months, constitutes no ground for error where it appears that the party complaining, though present at the time, made no objection to the omission.
3. Neither the affidavits filed in a cause, the certificate of the clerk, nor the agreed statement as to what took place at a trial, can be made to supply the place of a bill of exceptions taken in accordance with the statute. And where matter is sought to be brought into the record by such .means, it will, on error, be disregarded.
Motion overruled.