Crawford v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Crawford v. State

8 S.E. 445, 81 Ga. 708

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 22, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 8 S.E. 445 (Crawford v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crawford v. State, 8 S.E. 445, 81 Ga. 708 (Ga. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

The misnomer of the grand juror was abandoned in the argument. The sole question that remains is, whether the jury-book, as made up, was so defective as to render the grand jury illegal. Two irregularities are alleged: (1) that the clerk himself did not write the names, but called them out and some other person wrote them down; and (2) that the book was certified and signed by the commissioners before the names were inserted therein. We think these were mere irregularities, and only show that ministerial duties directed by the statute were not correctly performed. Code, §3910 (a) et seq.; Carter vs. State, 56 Ga. 463; Brinkley vs. State, 54 Ga. 371. The court was right in deciding that the special presentment should not be quashed or abated for the causes alleged in the plea, as explained by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

The misnomer of the grand juror was abandoned in the argument. The sole question that remains is, whether the jury-book, as made up, was so defective as to render the grand jury illegal. Two irregularities are alleged: (1) that the clerk himself did not write the names, but called them out and some other person wrote them down; and (2) that the book was certified and signed by the commissioners before the names were inserted therein. We think these were mere irregularities, and only show that ministerial duties directed by the statute were not correctly performed. Code, §3910 (a) et seq.; Carter vs. State, 56 Ga. 463; Brinkley vs. State, 54 Ga. 371. The court was right in deciding that the special presentment should not be quashed or abated for the causes alleged in the plea, as explained by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 S.E. 445, 81 Ga. 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-state-ga-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack