Wilson v. State

• Citation: 13 So. 225,70 Miss. 595
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Decision Date: 15 May 1893
• Parties: GEORGE WILSON v. THE STATE

13 So. 225

70 Miss. 595

GEORGE WILSON v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 15, 1893

FROM the circuit court of Lee county, HON. NEWNAN CAYCE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of forgery. The indictment alleged that the forgery was committed for the purpose of defrauding the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company. The defendant filed a plea in abatement, alleging that J. L. Finley, the attorney for said telegraph company, who had been employed to aid in the prosecution, went before the grand jury with witnesses, and acted for the district attorney in preparing the indictment and procured the same to be found and presented; that the district attorney was not present in the grand jury room when said indictment was found; that Finley had not been selected as assistant district attorney or district attorney pro tem and was in nowise connected with the case, except that he was the attorney of the telegraph company, and, as such, assisted in the prosecution of defendant.

On the trial of the issue presented by the plea in abatement, the main allegations thereof were proved. J. L. Finley testified that he was assisting the district attorney in the prosecution of the case, but was not employed to do so by the telegraph company; that he was employed by said company to defend certain civil suits for damages growing out of prosecutions against the defendant; that he was not sworn as a witness, and did not testify before the grand jury, but told one of the grand jurors what witnesses to summon; that he prepared the indictment in this case, and another against the defendant for perjury, but was not employed by any one to prosecute; that he conferred with the district attorney, and was in the grand jury room in reference to the case at his request; that he used no undue influence to induce the grand jury to return the bill. Two of the grand jurors testified to the fact of Finley's presence in the jury-room. Each of them testified that he was not influenced in his action by. Finley's statement, and one of them stated that he did not think the grand jury was so influenced.

Under the instruction of the court, the jury found against the defendant upon this issue. Being finally convicted, he prosecuted this appeal. The opinion contains a further statement of the case.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial.

Clarke & Clarke, for appellant.

Without argument of the facts in respect to the trial of the issue raised by the plea in abatement, and without discussion as to the propriety of a peremptory instruction against the accused at any stage of the prosecution, we submit that the action of the court as to...