Justice v. State
| Citation | 17 Ind. 56 |
| Parties | Justice v. The State |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1861 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
APPEAL from the Knox Common Pleas.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
J. A Thornton, J. E. McDonald and A. L. Roache, for the appellants.
James G. Jones, Attorney General, for the State.
Information against the appellant, charging, "that a man calling himself William Justice, being a person now in the custody of the sheriff of said county, on a charge of felony before and without indictment by the grand jury, at the county of Knox, and State of Indiana, on or about December 4, 1859, did, then and there, feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, and drive away, a certain brindle-colored milch cow, of the value of twenty-five dollars, being the personal property, then and there, of Thomas Bishop, then and there being found."
On this information, the defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of five years. The appellant has assigned errors, raising a question as to the jurisdiction of the Court below.
The Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction in felonies, only in certain specified cases, and the information must, on its face, show such a state of facts as entitles the Court to entertain such jurisdiction. McCarty v. The State, 16 Ind. 310.
In the information before us, no fact is alleged, giving the Court jurisdiction, unless it be that the defendant was in custody on a charge of felony, and that no indictment had been found against him. Whether this is sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction, depends upon the construction which should be given to the following statutory provision, viz., "The Court of Common Pleas, in the several counties of this State, shall have original jurisdiction of felonies, not punishable with death, concurrent with the Circuit Court, in the following cases:
First. When a person is in custody on a charge of felony, before indictment by the grand jury." Acts 1859, § 2, p. 94.
This provision, as we construe it, contemplates that the party is to be in custody on a charge of the particular felony of which the Court is to take jurisdiction. It was clearly not the intention of the Legislature to authorize the Court of Common Pleas, because a party is in custody on a charge of one felony, to try him on a charge of another. If this were the case, if a party were in custody on a charge punishable with death, of which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Louis Shappy, Jr
...the point that want of jurisdiction apparent on the record is proper ground for arresting judgment. Truitt v. People, 88 Ill. 518; Justice v. State, 17 Ind. 56; Reams v. State, 23 Ind. 111; v. Bonney, 34 Me. 223; Ryan v. Com., 80 Va. 385; Moultrop v. Bennett, Kirby 351; Robinson v. Mead, 7 ......
-
Glaser v. State
...its jurisdiction is limited and may be obtained only through the methods prescribed by law, citing McCarty v. State, 16 Ind. 310;Justice v. State, 17 Ind. 56;Walker v. State, 23 Ind. 61; and Cobb v. State, 27 Ind. 133. In each of those cases the pleading-information-was held to be insuffici......
-
State v. Shappy
...the point that want of jurisdiction apparent on the record is proper ground for arresting judgment Truitt v. People, 88 Ill. 518; Justice v. State, 17 Ind. 56; Reams v. State, 23 Ind. 111; State v. Bonney, 34 Me. 223; Ryan v. Commonwealth, 80 Va. 385; Moultrap v. Bennett, Kirby, 351; Robins......
-
Glaser v. State
... ... jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this action, for the ... reason that, as to criminal causes, its jurisdiction is ... limited and may be obtained only through the methods ... prescribed by law, citing McCarty v. State ... (1861), 16 Ind. 310; Justice v. State ... (1861), 17 Ind. 56; Walker v. State (1864), ... 23 Ind. 61; and Cobb v. State (1866), 27 ... Ind. 133. In each of those cases the pleading ... --information--was held to be insufficient to show ... jurisdiction in the Common Pleas Court. The power of that ... court, under the ... ...