Pannell v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1860
• Parties: James M. C. Pannell, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 Ga. 681

James M. C. Pannell, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JANUARY TERM, 1860.

Indictment, in Burke Superior Court. Tried before Judge Holt, at May Term, 1859.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for furnishing liquor to a slave contrary to law. The State having announced ready for trial, the defendant moved for a continuance on account of the absence of two witnesses. This motion was supported by the affidavit of defendant as to what he expected to prove by the absent witnesses, etc. The court ruled the showing sufficient cause for a continuance. Whereupon, the counsel for the State made and submitted an admission in writing of the fact proposed to be proved by the absent witnesses, viz.: That "on the day before and the day after the al-leged offence defendant had no liquor of any kind in his store, " and upon this admission moved for and insisted upon a trial of the case. Defendant objected on the ground that the admission was not sufficient to force him to a trial, and that the Act relating to such admissions does not apply to criminal cases. The court overruled the objection and ruled the defendant to trial; to which decision he excepted.

After the jury was stricken and four of them sworn, one of the jurors selected informed the court that he was too sick to try the case; whereupon he was discharged, and counsel were asked by the court if they could not agree upon another juror. Counsel for defendant proposed to substitute one who had been stricken by the State, which proposition the Attorney-General declined. Defendant's counsel then moved that the court should declare a mistrial, which the court refused to do, but required counsel to strike a jury from the same panel, another name being added thereto in lieu of the juror who was sick. To which rulings and decisions counsel for defendant excepted.

In the progress of the trial, the presiding judge held that the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of said admission, unless he offered it as evidence in his behalf, and thereby thus depriving defendant of the conclusion. To which decision defendant excepted.

The evidence on the part of the State was, that the slave went into defendant's shop or store-house, between nine o'clock at night and daybreak, and that he went in with an empty bottle and came out with it filled with whiskey. The defendant and his wife, and, perhaps, a boy, were in the house at the time. That the slave went in and obtained the liquor with the knowledge of his owner and overseer of his intention so to do, and that the overseer was present and permitted him to go in for that purpose. Upon this evidence the court charged the jury that the presumption arising from the slave being in the store at the time of night, wasagainst the defendant, and that presumption could not be rebutted, unless it appeared that the slave was sent by his owner, overseer or employer, and the knowledge and consent of the owner and overseer did not remove said...