Dean v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Dean v. State

100 Ala. 102

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 100 Ala. 102 (Dean v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dean v. State, 100 Ala. 102 (Ala. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, C. J.

The statute—“To regulate the trial of misdemeanors in Shelby county, Alabama,” approved February 12,1891—Sess. Acts 580—and the amendatory statute approved February 21, 1892—Sess. Acts 826—each of them, is coustitutional. The latter is an amendment and repeal of the former. 3 Brick. Dig. 132, §§ 82, 83, 84, 85; Ib. 750, §§ 46, 49; Connelly v. State, 60 Ala. 89; Cawthorn v. State, 63 Ala. 157; Ex parte Merlet, 71 Ala. 371. It results that there was no merit in the attempted defense to the jurisdiction, nor in the motion to strike the case from the docket.

Nor is there merit in the d'emurrer to the indictment. It strictly conforms to the statute. Code of 1886 § 4038.

In having summoned, and in organizing Jury No. 2, the County Court erred. There is no authority in the statute for such proceeding. The statute clearly contemplates that there shall be but one regular jury at each term of the court. The challenge of jurors because they were so summoned and organized ought to have prevailed. We would [105]*105not doubt, however, that tbe County Court has authority to summon talesmen, whenever, from any cause, it becomes necessary to supply the places of jurors that may be challenged, or, who may fail to appear. All we decide is, that the statute makes provision for only one jury. If this leads to delay, or to inconvenience, the fault is in the statute.

Eeversed and remanded.

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

STONE, C. J.

The statute—“To regulate the trial of misdemeanors in Shelby county, Alabama,” approved February 12,1891—Sess. Acts 580—and the amendatory statute approved February 21, 1892—Sess. Acts 826—each of them, is coustitutional. The latter is an amendment and repeal of the former. 3 Brick. Dig. 132, §§ 82, 83, 84, 85; Ib. 750, §§ 46, 49; Connelly v. State, 60 Ala. 89; Cawthorn v. State, 63 Ala. 157; Ex parte Merlet, 71 Ala. 371. It results that there was no merit in the attempted defense to the jurisdiction, nor in the motion to strike the case from the docket.

Nor is there merit in the d'emurrer to the indictment. It strictly conforms to the statute. Code of 1886 § 4038.

In having summoned, and in organizing Jury No. 2, the County Court erred. There is no authority in the statute for such proceeding. The statute clearly contemplates that there shall be but one regular jury at each term of the court. The challenge of jurors because they were so summoned and organized ought to have prevailed. We would [105]*105not doubt, however, that tbe County Court has authority to summon talesmen, whenever, from any cause, it becomes necessary to supply the places of jurors that may be challenged, or, who may fail to appear. All we decide is, that the statute makes provision for only one jury. If this leads to delay, or to inconvenience, the fault is in the statute.

Eeversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Ala. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-v-state-ala-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack