Mathis v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,068 |
| Citation | 94 Ind. 562 |
| Parties | Mathis v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Warren Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
W. P Rhodes, for appellant.
F. T Hord, Attorney General, H. H. Conley, Prosecuting Attorney and J. G. Pearson, for the State.
In this case, the appellant, Mathis, was indicted, tried and convicted for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of twenty-one years; and from the judgment of conviction he has appealed to this court.
The appellant has here assigned, as errors, the decisions of the circuit court, (1) in overruling his motion to quash the indictment, and (2) in overruling his motion for a new trial.
Of the first of these alleged errors, it is said in argument by appellant's counsel:
This is the entire argument of the appellant's counsel on the first error complained of, and we are not convinced thereby that the court erred in refusing to quash the indictment. Counsel is mistaken in asserting, as he does, that "the record discloses the fact," that the grand jurors, or any of them, were not "freeholders of the county." The most that can be correctly said is, that the record does not disclose in direct terms, whether the grand jurors were, or were not, "freeholders of the county." In such case, if the fact existed that the grand jurors, or any of them, were not freeholders of the county, the defect in the indictment could not be reached, or taken advantage of, by a motion to quash such indictment, but only by a plea in abatement. Wills v. State, 69 Ind. 286. In this case, the indictment commenced as follows: "The grand jurors of Warren county, in the State of Indiana, good and lawful men, duly and legally empanelled, sworn and charged, in the Warren Circuit Court of said State, at the March term for the year 1883, to inquire," etc. After quoting a similar recital from the indictment, in Powers v. State, 87 Ind. 144, this court said: "With the presumptions that are indulged in favor of the regularity of legal proceedings, the foregoing sufficiently shows that the indictment was found and returned by a legal and duly qualified grand jury." Bailey v. State, 39 Ind. 438; Bell v. State, 42 Ind. 335; Holloway v. State, 53 Ind. 554.
The motion to quash the indictment, in the case at bar, was correctly overruled.
Of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donahue v. State
... ... plead in abatement, assuming, of course, that there was no ... opportunity to make such objections, if any, [165 Ind. 152] ... as might have been raised by challenge. Willey v ... State (1874), 46 Ind. 363; Pointer v ... State (1883), 89 Ind. 255; Mathis v ... State (1884), 94 Ind. 562; Henning v ... State (1886), 106 Ind. 386, 55 Am. Rep. 756, 6 N.E ... Counsel ... for appellant state that the second count is bad because it ... does not appear that it was returned by a grand jury of Lake ... county. The introductory ... ...
-
Henning v. The State
...errors or irregularities in the selection or empaneling of the grand jury are properly taken advantage of by a plea in abatement. Mathis v. State, 94 Ind. 562; Pointer v. State, 89 Ind. Wills v. State, 69 Ind. 286; Miller v. State, 69 Ind. 284; Meiers v. State, 56 Ind. 336; Sater v. State, ......
-
Nichols v. The State
...the rendition of such judgment. Pickering v. State, 106 Ind. 228, 6 N.E. 611; Exchange Bank v. Ault, 102 Ind. 322, 1 N.E. 562; Mathis v. State, 94 Ind. 562; Pointer v. State, 89 Ind. If such a state of facts existed as did not authorize a prosecution of the appellants by affidavit and infor......
-
Williams v. State
...Ransbottom v. State, 144 Ind. 250, 252, 43 N. E. 218;Padgett v. State, 103 Ind. 550, 3 N. E. 377;Heath v. State, 101 Ind. 512;Mathis v. State, 94 Ind. 562;Courtney v. State, 5 Ind. App. 356, 32 N. E. 335. In this case the record recites the performance of all acts necessary to the impanelin......