Minor v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1879
• Citation: 63 Ga. 318
• Parties: Minor. v. The State of Georgia.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

63 Ga. 318

Minor. v. The State of Georgia.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(September Term, 1879.)

[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]

Criminal law. Indictment. Jury. Tippling-house. Evidence. Charge of Court. Certiorari. Before Judge Wright. Dougherty County. At Chambers. July 18, 1879.

Minor was placed on trial in the county court for the offense of keeping open a tippling-house on the Sabbath-day, and also for retailing without license. He was convicted in each case. He presented petitions for the writ of certiorari, alleging as erroneous the rulings set forth in the opinion. The writs were refused, and he excepted.

The cases were argued together in this court.

H. Morgan, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. Oliver, county solicitor; D. A. Vason, for the state.

Bleckley, Justice.

The indictments were demurred to in due time, and the points against them may be considered as these three: that they gave the initials only, and not the full christian names of some of the grand jurors; that the foreman of the grand jury was over age, and his name was not in the jury-box; and that the names of the grand jurors were not inserted in the indictments by the jurors themselves, but were all in one and the same handwriting.

*1. However it may be elsewhere, in this state men are frequently as well known by their initials as by their given or christian names in full. 18 Ga., 465. Many are even better known by the former than by the latter. Hundreds and thousands, no doubt, sign almost invariably with nothing for the prenomen but initials. The most solemn private and public documents are thus executed every day. Deeds and wills are so signed; and the same is true of pleadings, process, judgments, executions, levies, warrants, bills of exceptions, and official certificates. If, with us, initials do not constitute, or adequately represent, a given name, it is not improbable that more than half the instruments, public and private, executed within the state in the last fifty years are defectively signed. There seems no reason for overthrowing an indictment for a mode of writing names which has become interwoven with the whole business of the state and people, and the prevalence of which is attested by the records of every court, this court included. In the nature of things, letters of the alphabet are as well adapted as words to stand for and distinguish different persons of the same cognomen. Thus A. H. Brown, B. T. Brown and C. M. Brown, would serve quite as well to identify three members of the Brown family as Andrew H. Brown, Bemjamin T. Brown and Charles M. Brown, and when by long use the initial forms are in fact as well known as the others, they will be just as certain as the others to suggest the right persons. And this is the great office and purpose of a name. If it is in common and familiar use, and stands to the mind as a sign or index of the persons signified, what it wants in other respects is of no practical consequence. In impressing a name, no baptismal seal is requisite. The rule of law as to two names for the same person is, that either is sufficient when the individual is equally well known by the one as by the other; and there is, at this day, no substantial reasons for not applying the rule between two usual and customary forms of writing a name. Without shutting the eyes to all the light that surrounds us, *there can be no presumption that particular men are less known by their initials than by their given names in full. And we are clear that the contrary presumption ought to be indulged where initials only are prefixed to the surnames of members of the grand jury in the indictments which they have found and returned. The persons whose names are in question are to be considered as themselves practicing and sanctioning that form.

2. As to the foreman, there was no evidence that he was over age or that his name was not in the jury box. Neither of these facts appeared on the face of the record or the pleadings, and if they existed, the demurrer could not reach them. As no incompetency was apparent, the court, in ruling the demurrer, had to presume that the foreman, as well as the rest, was competent.

3. It is a novel suggestion that each member of the grand jury must sign or insert his name with his own hand, and that some one member may not act as clerk, and do the clerical work of the body, as has been the immemorial usage in this state. The suggestion is...