Bates v. State

Decision Date05 November 1898
Citation24 So. 448,118 Ala. 102
PartiesBATES v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from city court of Selma; J. W. Mabry, Judge.

Jonas Bates was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appealed. Reversed.

The appellant, Jonas Bates, was indicted, and tried for the murder of one Henry Randall, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for 99 years.

Upon the cause being called for trial, the defendant moved to quash the indictment upon the following ground: "That the grand jury which found this said indictment was not drawn as required by law, in this: that the jury commissioners of Dallas county in filling the jury box from which the names of the persons composing said grand jury were drawn, did not cause to be prepared slips of plain white paper of the same size and texture, and did not write the name, occupation and place of residence of said jurors on said slips of plain white paper, and did not fold or roll up said slips, one by one, and place them in said box, as is required by the act to regulate the drawing and impaneling of grand and petit juries in Dallas county, approved February 14, 1885 (Acts 1884-85 p. 492); but said jury commissioners in filling said box wrote the names, occupation and residence of said jurors on slips of white card or white cardboard of the same size and texture, and placed said slips of card or cardboard in said jury box, without folding or rolling up said slips. And the defendant says that the jury commissioners in filling said jury box from which the names of the said grand jurors were drawn were following the provisions of the act approved February 24, 1887 (Acts 1886-87, p. 209), which said act approved February 24, 1887, is unconstitutional and void in that it charges, amends or extends the aforesaid act of February 14, 1885, by reference to its title only, and not by re-enacting and publishing at length so much thereof as is 'revised, amended, extended or conferred,' as is required by law; and defendant says that the names of the persons composing said grand jury were drawn from said box so filled by the jury commissioners, as above set out, under said void act of February 24, 1887. Wherefore defendant moves to quash said indictment."

To this motion the state demurred upon the following grounds: (1) That said motion fails to show that the grand jury which found said indictment was not drawn in the presence of the officers designated by law. (2) That it does not appear from said motion that the grand jury which found said indictment was not drawn by the jury commissioners of Dallas county as required by law. (3) It appears from the motion that the grand jury was drawn in accordance with the statute in such cases made and provided. This demurrer was sustained and the defendant excepted. Thereupon the defendant filed a plea in abatement upon the same grounds as his motion to quash the indictment was based. To this plea the state demurred and assigned as grounds of demurrer the same as were assigned to the motion to quash the indictment. This demurrer was sustained and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant filed a motion to quash the venire upon the same grounds, and the demurrer assigning the same grounds was sustained to this motion. To this ruling the defendant duly excepted. These rulings present the only questions reviewed on the present appeal.

George H. Craig and A. L. McLeod, for appellant.

Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON J.

The first section of the act of February 14, 1885 (Acts 1884-85, p. 492), provides, "That the jury commissioners of Dallas county, the judge of probate and the clerk of the circuit court of said county, shall meet in the office of the clerk of said court on the first Monday in January, 1885, or whenever the jury box is found to contain less than 100 names, or as soon thereafter as practicable; and the said commissioners under the direction of said probate judge shall make a list or roll of every male citizen living in said county, who possesses the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, and who is not herein specifically exempted from serving on juries. The said roll shall be arranged alphabetically, and said commissioners shall write on said roll opposite every name placed thereon, the occupation and residence of said person. Upon the completion of said roll, said commissioners shall cause to be prepared slips of plain white paper of the same size and texture and shall write on said slips the name, occupation and place of residence of said person whose name has been placed on said roll, writing but one person's name, occupation and residence on one slip, and shall fold or roll up said slips one by one, and place them in a substantial wooden or tin box, provided with a lock and key, which said box shall be kept in the safe in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Dallas county, and the key thereof to be kept by the probate judge, who shall not allow it to be [kept] by any person except himself in his own proper person."

On the 24th February, 1887 (Acts 1886-87, p. 209), the legislature passed another act amendatory of this act, entitled "An act, to amend an act to regulate the drawing and impaneling of grand and petit juries in Dallas county, approved Feb'y 14th, 1885," the first section of which reads "that upon the completion of the roll required to be made by section one of the above entitled act, said commissioners shall cause to be prepared slips of plain white paper, or of white card, or of white card-board of the same size and texture, and shall write or print on said slips or cards the full name, occupation and place of residence of said person whose name has been placed on said roll, writing but one person's name, occupation and residence on one slip or card. Said slips or cards shall not be folded or creased, and shall be placed in a substantial wooden or tin box, provided with a lock and key, which box shall be kept in a safe in the office of the clerk of circuit court of Dallas county, and the key thereof to be kept by the probate judge, who shall not allow it to be used or kept by any person except himself in his own proper person, or in his absence as provided in section 16 of said act by the judge of the city court of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Hart v. Backstrom
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 13 Junio 1927
    ... ... 3 ... STATUTES. Statute dispensing with requirement of another ... statute that lists of land struck off to state for taxes ... should be filed with land commissioner amends it by ... implication and does not violate constitutional provision ... that law ... 532, 40 P ... 926; In re Ashby, 60 Kan. 101, 55 P. 336; 26 A. & E ... Encycl. of L. 709." ... [148 ... Miss. 49] In Bates v. State, 118 Ala. 102, ... 24 So. 448, the supreme court of Alabama, in discussing the ... effect of similar constitutional provisions in that ... ...
  • Windham v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 5 Febrero 1918
    ...shall be clearly expressed in its title. This provision must receive a reasonable construction, so as to give it effect. Bates v. State, 118 Ala. 102, 24 So. 448; v. Rogers, 107 Ala. 444, 19 So. 909, 32 L.R.A. 520. If the subject is expressed in general terms, everything necessary to make a......
  • State ex rel. Howard v. Cole, 7 Div. 425
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 12 Marzo 1959
    ...v. Cargile, 138 Ala. 164, 35 So. 114; Thomas v. State, 124 Ala. 48, 54, 27 So. 315; Cobb v. Vary, 120 Ala. 263, 24 So. 442; Bates v. State, 118 Ala. 102, 24 So. 448; Birmingham Union Ry. Co. v. Elyton Land Co., 114 Ala. 70, 21 So. 314; Ex parte Thomas, 113 Ala. 1, 6, 21 So. 369; State ex re......
  • State v. Hubbard
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 6 Julio 1906
    ... ... the provisions of the other statutes on the same subject, ... there appearing in more enlarged and extended form." ... See, also, Sisk v. Cargile, 138 Ala. 164, 35 So ... 114; Thomas v. State, 124 Ala. 54, 27 So. 315; ... Cobb v. Vary, 120 Ala. 263, 24 So. 442; Bates v ... State, 118 Ala. 102, 24 So. 448; B. U. Ry. Co. v ... Elyton Land Co., 114 Ala. 70, 21 So. 314; Ex parte ... Thomas, 113 Ala. 1, 6, 21 So. 369; State ex rel. v ... Rogers, 107 Ala. 444, 19 So. 909, 32 L. R. A. 520; ... Gandy v. State, 86 Ala. 20, 5 So. 420; Falconer ... v. Robinson, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT