State v. Thomas
Ohio Supreme Court
Exceptions by tbe prosecuting attorney to tbe ruling of tbe Court of Common Pleas of Brown County. The grand jury empanelled at the September term, 1899, of the court of common pleas of Brown county, found and returned the following indictment against William Thomas for horse stealing and grand larceny: “The jurors of the grand jury of the state of Ohio, within and for the body of the county of Brown aforesaid, on their oaths, in the name and by the authority of the state of…
Read the full summary
Exceptions by tbe prosecuting attorney to tbe ruling of tbe Court of Common Pleas of Brown County. The grand jury empanelled at the September term, 1899, of the court of common pleas of Brown county, found and returned the following indictment against William Thomas for horse stealing and grand larceny: “The jurors of the grand jury of the state of Ohio, within and for the body of the county of Brown aforesaid, on their oaths, in the name and by the authority of the state of Ohio, do find and present that William Thomas, late of the county aforesaid, on the 17th day of July, in the year of…
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
The objections made to the indictment are, in substance: (1) that the judge who opened and held the term of the court at which the indictment was found, was without jurisdiction to impanel the grand jury or to receive its report, because he had not been assigned to hold that term, by the judges of the district, nor so designated in any order issued by them; (2) that the grand jury was without authority to find and return the indictment, because it was impaneled and sworn on a legal holiday, known as Labor Day; (3) that the body by which the indictment was found and returned was not a legally…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lampe v. ManningWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Perkins v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871