State v. Hughes
| Decision Date | 21 February 1910 |
| Docket Number | 14,274 |
| Citation | 96 Miss. 581,51 So. 464 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI v. GEORGE W. HUGHES |
FROM the circuit court of, first district, Hinds county, HON WILEY H. POTTER, Judge.
Hughes appellee, indicted for embezzlement, pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court. His plea was sustained and he was discharged. The state appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
Teat & Teat, and George Butler, assistant attorney-general, for appellant.
It is evident that the concurrent jurisdiction conferred upon the courts of the several counties is to bring the offender to trial upon the merits of the case, and only one trial can be had, thus giving to society the fullest protection of the criminal law and at the same time by Code 1906, § 1409, the defendant is equally as well protected in his constitutional rights.
The Coleman case differs very materially from the case at bar, and particularly in this respect, that a prosecution was commenced as required by section 27 of the constitution of Mississippi, by indictment by the grand jury of Quitman county, and the case at bar while the state made an effort to vest the Attala circuit court with jurisdiction, and exclusive jurisdiction, and appeared before the said grand jury with the witness, J. A. Porter, but said grand jury neglected to indict or declined to indict. The state voluntarily divested the circuit court of Quitman county of its jurisdiction in the Coleman case, and in the case at bar the state made its bona fide effort to invest the circuit court of Attala county with jurisdiction.
Can it be said that a prosecution is begun by an affidavit before a justice of the peace and the justice of the peace binding over the offender so as to give the circuit court of that county the exclusive jurisdiction of the cause? No act is done by the circuit court to acquire jurisdiction, no judgment can be rendered by the committing court of the justice of the peace which can be pleaded under Code 1906, § 1415, and if it should be insisted that said sec. 1415 defines what constitutes "a commencement of a prosecution" we insist that this section is written for the express purpose of enlarging or favoring jurisdiction and is not intended to be construed with the idea or purpose of exclusive jurisdiction The clause in said section "within the meaning of the last preceding section" refers of course to the statute of limitations generally and does not refer to said sections 1402, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408. If this had been the meaning of the same, that clause would not have been inserted. "A commencement of a prosecution" is therefore understood to mean, as written in said section 27 of the constitution of Mississippi, by indictment.
Williamson & Wells, for appellee.
When the affidavit was made before the justice of the peace, he heard the case and bound over Hughes to answer to the circuit court of Attala county, and the grand jury, which is a part of that court, for criminal prosecutions, took jurisdiction and cognizance of the matter, investigated it, and refused to indict, and the prisoner was discharged, together with his bondsman from and further liability. This is unquestionably a commencement of a prosecution in Attala county. It gave the circuit court there jurisdiction of the case and the refusal of the grand jury to indict, after investigation, would amount to the same thing as if the grand jury did indict and the circuit court nol prossed the case, and then another prosecution would be started in Hinds county.
The facts in this case bring it directly under the law as laid down in the case of Coleman v. State, 83 Miss. 290, 39 So. 937, where this court distinctly decides that the circuit court of one county cannot nol pros a case of which it had jurisdiction and thereby give jurisdiction to another county that had concurrent jurisdiction of the case in the beginning.
This is an appeal prosecuted on behalf of the state. It appears that one George W. Hughes was charged with embezzling certain funds belonging to the Jackson Cotton Oil Company, of Jackson, Hinds county, Miss. The charge was made in an affidavit before one C. W. Brooks, a justice of the peace of Attala county, the place where the actual embezzlement is charged to have occurred, and where Hughes then lived. A warrant was issued on this affidavit,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Angelo v. State
... ... 27; 14 Am. Jur ... 933, Sec. 240; State v. Pay, 45 Utah 411, 146 P ... 300; State v. Recorder First Dist., 42 La. Ann ... 1091; State v. Brunot, 28 So. 996, 104 La. 237; ... People v. Quinn, 150 A.D. 813, 818, 135 N.Y.S. 477; ... Ex parte Simpson, 57 So. 518, 3 Ala. App. 222; Hughes v ... State, 96 Miss. 581, 41 So. 464; Atkinson v ... State, 132 Miss. 377, 96 So. 310; State v. McKinley ... (Mo.), 111 S.W.2d 115; State v. Freeman (Utah), ... 71 P.2d 196; People v. Dochstader, 264 N.W. 356, 274 ... Mich. 238; State v. Leek (Utah), 39 P.2d 1091; ... Bailey v. State ... ...
-
Page v. State
...to compel his appearance to answer the offense". See Atkinson v. State, 132 Miss. 377, 96 So. 310, 311-12 (1923); State v. Hughes, 96 Miss. 581, 585-86, 51 So.464 (1910). It would be totally irrational to suggest that one "bound over" to await the action of the next grand jury had not been ......
-
Howell v. State
...to compel his appearance to answer the offense[.”] See Atkinson v. State, 132 Miss. 377, 96 So. 310, 311–12 (1923) ; State v. Hughes, 96 Miss. 581, 585–86, 51 So. 464 (1910). It would be totally irrational to suggest that one “bound over” to await the action of the next grand jury had not b......
-
Howell v. State
...to compel his appearance to answer the offense[."] See Atkinson v. State, 132 Miss. 377, 96 So. 310, 311-12 (1923); State v. Hughes, 96 Miss. 581, 585-86, 51 So. 464 (1910). It would be totally irrational to suggest that one "bound over" to await the action of the next grand jury had not be......