King v. State

• Decision Date: 09 February 1889
• Citation: 10 S.W. 509,87 Tenn. 304
• Parties: KING v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

10 S.W. 509

87 Tenn. 304

KING v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 9, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Wilson county; ROBERT CANTRELL, Judge.

Indictment of George King for assault with a knife, with intent (1) to commit murder in the second degree; (2) to commit manslaughter. The trial judge refused to put the jury in charge of an officer, and defendant excepted. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment being overruled, defendant appeals.

R. E Thompson and J. J. Turner, for appellant.

G. W Pickle, Atty. Gen., for the State.

TURNEY C.J.

Chapter 158 of the Acts of 1887, passed March 21, 1887, is entitled "An act to change the practice in the circuit and criminal courts of the state in regard to putting criminal juries under the rule," and provides "that in all criminal trials, when the minimum degree of punishment for the crime charged in the indictment is not above one year in the penitentiary, it shall not be necessary for the presiding judge to place the jury in charge of an officer, but the jury may, in the discretion of the court, disperse as in other cases, and the state shall not be chargeable for their board." This statute does not, in terms or by implication, repeal the general law requiring juries in felony cases to be placed in charge of an officer, and kept apart from other citizens. It undertakes to confer upon each judge of the criminal and circuit courts the power to suspend the general law; the judge's discretion being the only rule for his conduct. The statute before us permits the judge to have one rule in one case, and the opposite rule in another case, in the same county, and at the same term of the court. Under it he may have a discretion to be exercised in one county, and the reverse of that discretion in another county. There is nothing in the act defining, controlling, or limiting that discretion. He is not required to give or have a reason for its exercise the one way or the other; and therefore, when he says the jury in this criminal case may disperse, and the jury in that criminal case shall go, under the rule, the question is settled. Whether he is influenced in the one case by personal considerations for one or more of the jury, or in the other by motives of public policy, can make no difference. He is the sole judge of the question, and his reasons are his own, and there is no authority anywhere to inquire into them.

The statute is a broad conference of legislative power to abolish, suspend, modify, or enforce a general law. Acting under ...