Reich v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1874 |
| Citation | 53 Ga. 74 |
| Parties | Frederick Reich, plaintiff in error. v. The State of Georgia,defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal law. Indictment. Grand Jury. Witness. Aliens. Municipal corporations. Jurisdiction. Before Judge James Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1874.
Reich was presented for the offense of keeping open a tippling house on the Sabbath day. On arraignment he pleaded as follows:
1st. That on September 9th, 1873, he was taken before the mayor of the city of Columbus, charged with the same offense as is set out in the presentment, and convicted of the same; that said judgment remains in full force.
2d. That A. Cadman, one of the grand jurors who made the presentment, was not at that time a citizen of Georgia, but was then a subject of Great Britain.
3d. That the witnesses, upon whose testimony said presentment was found, were not sworn by or before the court; that if any oath was administered to them it was not an oath in these words: "The evidence you shall give the grand jury on this presentment, the state of Georgia against F. Reich, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God."
On demurrer, said pleas were stricken, and defendant excepted. He then pleaded guilty.
Error is assigned upon the above grounds of exception.
H. L. Benning; M. H. Blandford; C. R. Russell, for plaintiff in error.
W. A. Little, solicitor general, by Peabody & Brannon, for the state.
1. These pleas as to the oath of the grand jurymen are entirely too uncertain. They do not say what witnesses they refer to, nor do they point out in what the oath was defective. *Pleas ought always to present matter on which issue may be taken, and should contain such a statement as will notify to the opposite party what he has to meet.
2. We think the plea that one of the grand jurors was not a citizen, is a good plea. Section 3916 of the Code clearly contemplates that a grand juryman must be a citizen, and whilst the constitution does not, in terms, require it, and only uses the word "persons, " yet there is nothing in this inconsistent with the Code; and this has long been the law of this state. It was also the common law: 1 Chitty C. L., 307; 5 Bacon Ab., 312; 1 Bishop Criminal Law, 795; 3d Coke Inst, 34; 9 Texas, 65; 5 Porter, Ala., 484. So, too, we think the objection may be taken by special plea. There are some authorities seemingly to the effect that the challenge must be to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stapleton v. State
-
Stapleton v. State
... ... were not sworn before the grand jury as prescribed by law, ... nor was any witness so sworn in said case" ... (italics ours), this ground of the plea in abatement was ... defective. While a demurrer to it could have been interposed ... (Bird v. State, 50 Ga. 585; Reich v ... State, 53 Ga. 74, 21 Am.Rep. 265), the same result was ... reached through the verdict directed by the court ... 3. The ... indictment in this case was in all material respects similar ... to that in Youmans v. State, 7 Ga.App. 101, 66 S.E ... 383, which this court ... ...
- Nichols v. State
-
Nichols v. State
...* It follows, from what we have said, that the trial court erred in overruling the motion to set aside the indictment." In Reich v. State, 53 Ga. 74, 21 Am.Rep. 265, the Court held that: "It is a good special plea to an indictment, if made on arraignment, that one of the grand jurors who fo......