Staggs v. State

• Decision Date: 31 December 1842
• Parties: STAGGS v. THE STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

22 Tenn. 372

STAGGS

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December, 1842.

This case was argued by Messrs. Goode and Looney, for the plaintiff in error, and by the Attorney General and Mr. Shields, for the State.

Green, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an indictment against the defendant and two others for murder. The indictment is signed by “Littlebury L. Mack, Attorney General pro. tem. of Wayne county”--and the counsel for the prisoner contend that the record should show that said attorney general was duly and constitutionally appointed, qualified and inducted into office. The record contains the following entry: “It being announced to the court that William F. Dougherty, Esq., attorney general for this solicitorial district, has resigned his office as such attorney general, and it appearing to the court that there is no attorney general in attendance at this court to prosecute the pleas of the State, and the successor of the said Wm. F. Dougherty failing to attend this court, it is therefore considered by the court, that Littlebury L. Mack, a practising attorney of this court, be and he is hereby appointed attorney general pro tempore, to prosecute the pleas of the State at the present term of this court. Whereupon the said Littlebury L. Mack, took an oath faithfully and honestly to demean himself as such attorney general.”

No objection is taken to the regularity of the appointment of the attorney general pro tempore; but it is said that as the constitution requires that all officers shall take an oath to support the constitution of this State and of the United States before entering on the duties of their office, the record should show that those oaths were administered in this case; and as it is silent upon the subject, we are to infer that the oaths were not taken, and consequently that Mr. Mack was not properly qualified as attorney general, and authorized by law to prefer this bill of indictment against the defendants.

We are of opinion that the record of a criminal cause need not show that the attorney general took the oaths prescribed by the constitution and laws. If it be necessary to appear in every case that an attorney general pro tempore was thus qualified, no reason is perceived why the regularly elected attorney general's qualification should not be shown in every case prosecuted by him. But this no one would contend for, and indeed it would be impracticable, unless he were sworn into office in every county in his circuit. The public records of the country show that he is the regularly elected and commissioned officer of the government, and we are to presume that he has taken the oaths prescribed by the law and the constitution. The same thing must be presumed as to all the judicial and ministerial officers of the government. The action of various officers, judge, attorney general, clerk and sheriff, is necessary in every criminal prosecution; all these are required to take oaths before entering upon the duties of their offices; but no one has ever thought that a record of their oaths must be made in every court where...