State v. Ligon
Supreme Court of Alabama
This was an indictment for gaming, tried in Tuska-loosa Circuit court. The defendant plead, that one,, of the grand jurors, who concurred in the finding of said indictment, and without whose concurrence, said indictment was not found by the requisite number of grand jurors, to wit, one J M was not at the time of the finding of said indictment, a true hill, — a freeholder or householder in said county of Tuskaloosa.
Read the full summary
This was an indictment for gaming, tried in Tuska-loosa Circuit court. The defendant plead, that one,, of the grand jurors, who concurred in the finding of said indictment, and without whose concurrence, said indictment was not found by the requisite number of grand jurors, to wit, one J M was not at the time of the finding of said indictment, a true hill, — a freeholder or householder in said county of Tuskaloosa. To this plea, the State replied, that the said J M was, at the time of the finding of said indictment, a good and lawful grand juror for said county, for that he was at the time of…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaxte, J.
— We can perceive no error, of which the defendant has any cause to complain, in the decision on the demurrer. If the plea is to be considered as available, the replication was strictly formal and re-*169guiar, as it only asserted affirmatively, what was denied by the plea; and thus a proper issue was formed. The plea itself was insufficient, under the decision made in the case of the State vs Middleton, at the last term, and if it had been demurred to, must have been so pronounced ; but as issue has been taken on it, the defect cannot now be examined—Hazard vs Purdom, (3 Porter, 43.) What would…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hazard v. PurdomSupreme Court of Alabama · 1836
3Cited by4 opinions
- Spivey v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Boulo v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Commonwealth v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1874
- Steber v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934