Case Name: John D. Stewart, plaintiff in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1857-06
Citations: 23 Ga. 181
Docket Number: 
Parties: John D. Stewart, plaintiff in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
John D. Stewart, plaintiff in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
The exemption extended by law from road, patrol, and jury duties, to the Columbus Guards and other volunteer corps, in the City of Columbus, does not include honorary members.
Illegality, from Muscogee. Decision by Judge Worrell May Term, 1857.
John D. Stewart was fined forty dollars for non-attendance as a Grand Juror, at the May Term, 1856, of Muscogee Superior Court, execution issued for the collection of this fine, and Stewart filed his affidavit of illegality, on the ground that he was an honorary member of a volunteer military company, in the City of Columbus, the Columbus Guards ; that he pays to said company the annual sum of twenty dollars, for the benefit of said company; and that, as such member, he is, by law, exempt from jury duty, and that said ji.fa., and the j udgment on which it is founded, are illegal.
After argument, the presiding Judge overruled the affidavit, and ordered the execution to proceed, and counsel for defendant excepted.
Ingraham, Crawford & Russell, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. General, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court. —
Lumpkin J.,
delivering the opinion.
Does the Act of 1845, or any other statute upon this subject, granting certain privileges and immunities to the Columbus Guards and other volunteer corps in the City of Columbus, apply to, and include honorary members ?
We think not. The actual service rendered, and skill acquired by the regular members, is the foundation of the exemption from road, patrol, and jury duties. And however useful the money of the honorary members may be, in sustaining these corps, we cannot think they were intended to be embraced in the exemption. Neither the letter of the law, when carefully scrutinized, nor its spirit, would warrant any other conclusion.
Judgment affirmed.