Stanford v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. This case was a prosecution of appellant, Stanford, for a misdemeanor—unlawful cohabitation. The indictment was not marked filed by the clerk at the term of court at which it was found, as required by code 1892, § 1346. At the next following subsequent term, the court permitted the clerk to mark it filed.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. This case was a prosecution of appellant, Stanford, for a misdemeanor—unlawful cohabitation. The indictment was not marked filed by the clerk at the term of court at which it was found, as required by code 1892, § 1346. At the next following subsequent term, the court permitted the clerk to mark it filed. A motion to quash the indictment was interposed, on the ground that there was no legal evidence identifying it, which motion the court belovv overruled. The trial resulted in the conviction of Stanford, from which…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, J.
The ‘ ‘ marking ’ ’ the indictment filed, dating it, and signing the entries on it, by the clerk, are made, by § 1316 of code of 1892, the exclusive “legal evidence of the finding and presentation of the indictment. ’ ’ This was not done in this case, at the term at which the alleged indictment was found. Ita lex soripta est. The demurrer should have been sustained.
Judgment reversed, indictment quashed and cause remanded. Appellant will be held to answer such new indictment as the grand jury may prefer against him.
2Cited by10 opinions
- Wilson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2004
- Jones v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1978
- Fairley v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1931
- Carroll v. StateCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2007
- Wooten v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.