Moreland v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Citation: 51 Ga. 192
• Parties: Edmond Moreland et al., plaintiffs in error. v. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

51 Ga. 192

Edmond Moreland et al., plaintiffs in error. v. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1874.)

Criminal law. Demand for trial. Before Judge Buchanan. Troup Superior Court. May Term, 1873.

At the May term, 1872, of Troup superior court, an indictment was found against Edmond Moreland and Samuel Watts, for the offense of larceny from the house. At the November term of the same year, a demand for trial in behalf of both of the defendants, was entered on the minutes. At the May term, 1873, the case was called in its regular order and the defendants not appearing, their bonds were forfeited. After the call of the criminal docket was concluded the court announced chat no other criminal cases would be called except those in which bills had been found during that term. During the call of cases embraced in the above exception, defendants stated to the solicitor general that they would like to be tried. Subsequently, on the last day of the term, after the juries had been dismissed, defendants moved for an order of discharge. The motion was overruled and defendants excepted.

B. H. Bigham, for plaintiffs in error.

A. H. Cox, solicitor general, for the state.

McCay, Judge.

As a matter of course this section of the Code authorizing the defendant in a misdemeanor to demand a trial, and if *not tried at the second term after such demand is put on the minutes, to demand his discharge, must be qualified so as not to give him his discharge when the failure to try is his own fault, and so this court has in effect ruled: 21 Georgia, 148. Whose fault was the failure here? When the criminal docket was called, the case against him was called and he did not appear. Prima facie, we think this put him in fault, and he had no legal right to insist on his demand after this. To give a defendant the right thus to play fast and loose with the court, to be absent at his pleasure when his case is called in its order, and then speculate upon the occupation of the court until he sees it practically impossible to try him, and then and there insist upon his demand, would be to make a statute intended to prevent oppression a machine for defrauding the law. As we have said, we think when he failed to be present at the regular call of the court he lost his absolute right to be tried. If after this he can present a good excuse for his absence, and the court has not, in the progress of business, got something else on hand...