Dacey v. The Statu Of Ga.

Decision Date28 February 1854
Docket NumberNo. 36.,36.
Citation15 Ga. 286
PartiesJno, D. Dacey, plaintiff in error. vs. The Statu of Georgia.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Motion, in Bibb Superior Court. Decision by Judge Powers, November Term, 1853.

The case of the State vs. Jno. D. Dacey being called, defendant announced himself "ready, " and the same was continued by the State. Defendant then moved to place a demand for trial on the minutes. Some discussion arising upon the sufficiency of the bond, the motion was postponed for the present. Afterwards, the motion was called up, but defendant not being present in Court, it was again laid over. After the Jury were discharged, defendant again insisted on his motion, which was refused by the Court, on the ground that the Court more than once, before the discharge of the Jury, inquired of counsel if there were any other Jury trials, and defendant did not then move in his cause.

This decision of the Court is assigned as error.

Lochrane and Whittle, for plaintiff in error.

Sol. Gen. DeGraffenreid, for defendant in error.

By the Court.—Benning, J., delivering the opinion.

The eighteenth section of the fourteenth division of the Penal Code, is as follows: "Any person against whom a true bill of indictment is found for an offence, not affecting his or her life, may demand a trial at the term when the indictment is found, or at the next succeeding term thereafter, which demand shall be placed upon the minutes of the Court, and if such person shall not be tried at the term when the demand is made, or at the next succeeding term thereafter, provided, that at both terms there were Juries empanelled and qualified to try such prisoner; then he or she shall be absolutely discharged and acquitted of the offence charged in the indictment."

In this case, the defendant moved to place a demand for trial on the minutes of the Court. The motion was entertained by the Court, but its decision was temporarily postponed. Afterwards, the motion was called up, "but defendant being then out of Court, the same was passed by for the time".

This still left the motion a motion pending for disposition— a motion not disposed of for the term.

Afterwards, the movant insisted upon the motion. This he did not do, however, until the Juries had been discharged. The Court over-ruled the motion, on the ground, that before the "Jurors were dismissed, " it had "called on the counsel and parties in Court, more than once, to know if there were any other Jury trials, and if there were none others, the Juries would be dismissed".

Now, these calls of the Court, were not the same thing as would have been a call of the motion. The case had been continued by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Reid v. State, 42954
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 14 d2 Novembro d2 1967
    ...and in the enumeration of errors being to Code § 27-1901, known as the Demand Statute. The Sharpe case undertakes to distinguish Dacey v. State, 15 Ga. 286, decided prior to the Code of 1863 therein referred to, but the Sharpe case does not mention the case of Moore v. State, 63 Ga. 165, de......
  • Dublin v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 8 d4 Novembro d4 1906
    ...and then insist upon his demand. The demand upon the minutes is notice to the judge and prosecuting officer of its existence. Dacey v. State, 15 Ga. 286. In reference to the general subject of the rights of the accused under a demand duly entered, see Hunley v. State, 105 Ga. 636, 31 S. E. ......
  • Dublin v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 8 d4 Novembro d4 1906
    ...and then insist upon his demand. The demand upon the minutes is notice to the judge and prosecuting officer of its existence. Dacey v. State, 15 Ga. 286. In reference to general subject of the rights of the accused under a demand duly entered, see Hunley v. State, 105 Ga. 636, 31 S.E. 543; ......
  • Jeffries v. State, 52629
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 27 d3 Outubro d3 1976
    ...These early cases most often involved the refusal of the trial court to order the inscribing of the demand upon the minutes. See Dacey v. State, 15 Ga. 286; Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 64; Sharpe v. State, 10 Ga.App. 212, 73 S.E. 33; Odom v. State, 25 Ga.App. 746(1), 105 S.E. 54. Thus it was hel......
  • 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