Case Name: State vs. Shaw & Rutledge
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1847-09
Citations: 8 Hum. 32
Docket Number: 
Parties: State vs. Shaw & Rutledge.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 32–34

Head Matter:
State vs. Shaw & Rutledge.
1. The act of 1823, ch. 25, which make the treating of electors with a view to obtain their votes presentable by two grand jurors, is repealed by the act of 1842, which places all offences on the same footing, to wit; v indictable, and also presentable on the information of any member of the grand jury.
2. The judgment against the defendant on demurrer to aiv indictment fora misdemeanor is final.
An indictment was'presented to the grand jury of Greene county, at the instance of Hinkle, prosecutor, against Shaw and Rutledge, and was returned a true bill.
The first count in this indictment charges, that “James Shaw being a candidate for constable in the fifth civil district of said county of Greene, at an election held on the 7th day of March, 1846, in the. county aforesaid, did then and there, being a candidate for the office of constable, unlawfully treat the electors at said election with spirituous liquors, for the purpose of obtaining their votes thereby, contrary to the statute,” &c. &c.
The second count charges, that Shaw unlawfully treated the electors .with spirituous liquors to obtain their votes, through the instrumentality of Rutledge, his agent, &c.
A third count charges the offence jointly against Shaw and Rutledge.
The defendants demurred to this indictment, because they say that the offence charged in the indictment is not the subject of an indictment, but can only be reached through a presentment made upon the knowledge of two or more of the grand jury.
The officer for the State joined in the demurrer, and the presiding judge sustained the demurrer, and discharged the defendants. From this judgment the attorney general for the State appealed.
Attorney general, for the state.
Arnold, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Turley J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a bill of indictment against James Shaw and James Rutledge, for treating the electors of the fifth civil district of Greene county with spirituous liquors, for the purpose of obtaining their votes for James Shaw, for the office of constable.
There is a demurrer to the indictment, and in support thereof it is argued that the act of 1823, ch. 25, which creates the offence, makes it presentable upon the knowledge of two or more of the grand jury, and not indictable. This is the true construction of the statute, and the argument would be unanswerable, but for the fact, that the act of 1842, ch. 141, sec. 4, provides that all violations of the penal laws may be prosecuted by indictment or presentment of a grand jury, and in case of presentment upon the information of any one of the grand jury.- This statute repeals that provision of the act of 1823, which required the offence to be presented by two of the grand jurors upon their own knowledge, and makes it indictable.
The circuit judge, therefore, erred in sustaining the demurrer, and his judgment will be reversed. And this court proceeding to render such judgment as the circuit court should have rendered, fines the defendants one hundred dollars, according to the provisions of the act of 1823, ch. 25.