Mathis v. State

50 Tenn. 127, 3 Heisk. 127, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 73
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 18, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 Tenn. 127 (Mathis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mathis v. State, 50 Tenn. 127, 3 Heisk. 127, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 73 (Tenn. 1871).

Opinion

NxchousoN, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error was indicted in the Circuit Court of Stewart county for house-breaking. At the December Term, 1870, he was tried, Judge James E. Pice presiding when he was convicted and sentenced to the Penitentiary for ten years. From the judgment rendered, he has appealed to this Court.

The proof shows that the house broken into was a store house; and there is no proof that there was any person living or lodging in it. This Court held, in the case of Palmer v. The State, 7 Cold., 82, that the offense of house-breaking, as defined in the statute, means the breaking into a mansion house. We concur in the correctness of that decision; and hence, we hold that the defendant was improperly convicted, and that the Circuit Judge erred in not granting a new trial.

It appears from the record, that the indictment was signed by James E. Pice, Attorney General, and that he presided as Judge on the trial of the cause. This is assigned as error, and we think, correctly. The Constitution, Art. 6, s. 11, provides, that no Judge shall preside in any cause in which he may have been of counsel; and section 3913 of the Code, contains a similar provision. We are unable to discover any reason for prohibiting a Judge from presiding in a civil cause in which he may have been of counsel, which does not apply on the trial of a criminal cause. . The Constitution makes no distinction, and we are not authorized to make any.

Other errors, as to the admission and rejection of [129]*129evidence, have been relied on for the defendant; but we deem it unnecessary to notice them, as the judgment must be reversed for the errors stated, and the cause remanded for another trial on a proper indictment.

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

Related

Fisher v. State
174 S.W.2d 446 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1943)
In re Cameron
126 Tenn. 614 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 Tenn. 127, 3 Heisk. 127, 1871 Tenn. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathis-v-state-tenn-1871.