Wright v. State

• Decision Date: 09 November 1905
• Citation: Wright v. State, 124 Ga. 84, 52 S.E. 146 (Ga. Nov 09, 1905)
• Parties: WRIGHT v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

52 S.E. 146

124 Ga. 84

WRIGHT v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 9, 1905

Syllabus by the Court.

Even if a person be ineligible to hold the office of jury commissioner, yet, if he is appointed to such office and acts therein, he is, while so acting, a jury commissioner de facto, and the official acts of the board of jury commissioners wherein he participated are valid, and cannot be collaterally attacked upon the ground that such person was incompetent to hold the office of jury commissioner.

The evidence fully warranted the verdict, and there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial.

Error from City Court of La Grange; Frank Harwell, Judge.

Henry Wright was convicted of gaming, and brings error. Affirmed.

E. T Moon, for plaintiff in error.

Henry Reeves, for the State.

FISH C.J.

The plaintiff in error was tried by a jury in the city court of La Grange, under an indictment charging him with the offense of playing and betting at cards. When the panel of jurors was put upon him, he challenged the array, in writing, upon the ground that Olin Carlton, one of the jury commissioners "who helped prepare the jury list from which the jury box was prepared, from which said panel of jurors was drawn was, at the time of his appointment as jury commissioner and at the time he helped prepare said jury list, a duly elected qualified, and acting justice of the peace of said county," and that therefore the whole proceeding by the jury commissioners in preparing the list of jurors for the jury box was illegal. In answer to this challenge, the state, by its solicitor, admitted the facts alleged therein, but denied that they constituted any sufficient ground for challenge to the array. The court overruled the challenge, and the accused excepted pendente lite. Upon the trial the jury returned a verdict finding the accused guilty. He made a motion for a new trial upon the general grounds, which was overruled, and he excepted, assigning error in his bill of exceptions, both upon the overruling of this motion and upon the overruling of his challenge to the array of the jurors.

1. County officers are not eligible for appointment and service on the board of jury commissioners. Pen. Code 1895, § 813. It is contended that a justice of the peace is a county officer and for the purpose of this decision this contention may be admitted. We assume, then, that Carlton, the justice of the peace, was,...