bill of indictment, in case of misdemeanors, to be found
by nine Grand Jurors, not unconstitutional. Thurman
vs. The State,
1. The Solicitor General moved to continue, saying,
that the State was not ready. The Court granted the
motion.
Held, That as an abuse of discretion does not here affir
matively appear, this Court would not interfere with
the judgment, if it could ;-
And that, as it could not do so if it
one that it ought not to entertain.
The State,
would, the case is
Turner et al. vs.
2. When the party resides out of the county, the attorney
may make the showing for a continuance, provided for
by the 35th rule of Court. The case is the same, when
the privy liable over to the party, resides out of the
county, if it is he that defends the suit.
Mansfield,
3. Presiding Judge has a discretion in the continuance
of a cause, and if he thinks it unjust to charge it to
either party, he is not bound by law to do it. Harda-
way vs. Taylor & Lowther,
1. The rule that words spoken before and at the making
of a written contract merge in the contract, does not
apply when the words spoken themselves constitute a
contract, the parties to which, are not the same as the
parties to the written contract. Ford vs Smith,
2. When a contract has been repudiated by both of the
parties to it, it ceases to be the criterion for measuring
the rights and liabilities between the partics to it. Id.
3. Even when the work has not been done according
to the contract, yet if received, and of benefit to the
party receiving it, he shall pay for it a sum equal to
the value of the labor and materials. Id.
1. Certain persons associated and drew up a declaration
and recorded it, agreeably to the Act of 1847, authoriz-
ing persons to prosecute the business of manufactur-
ing with corporate powers and privileges, and assumed
the name of the Madison Steam Mill Company. On
the 11th of February 1854, the Legislature passed an
Act granting corporate powers and privileges to the
Madison Steam Mill Company, recognizing it as a bo̟-
dy corporate and politic, declaring among other things
that it should have, possess and enjoy all the franchises
which were then held by the said company.
Held, That these two Acts so far as they are consistent
with each other make the charter of the company.
Johnson vs. Crawley,
2. The acceptance of the new Act did not destroy the
old organization. Id.
3. If an agent of a corporation have authority to con-
vey or mortgage, and affixes thereto anything which the
law recognizes as a seal when affixed by a natural per-
son, it will be a good execution presumptively by the
corporation. Id.
1. The Superior Court may order its Clerk to revise and
review a judgment for costs, and order them to be re-
taxed. McGuire et al. vs. Johnson,
2. A party cast in the Supreme Court liable for the costs
in that Court; and if he eventually succeed in his cause
in the Superior Court, he cannot recover them. Id.
1. The possession and occupancy of a house by a per-
son, as a dwelling house, is sufficient evidence of own-
ership thereof in that person, to support an allegation
in an indictment for larceny from the house, that the
prisoner entered the dwelling house of that person.
Markham vs. The State,
2. When there is no evidence that a boarder hired a par-
ticular room to lodge in, it is not error in the Court to
refuse to charge the jury, that the indictment ought to
have charged the offense to have been committed in the
hired lodgings of a boarder. Id.
3. The 18th section of the 14th Division of the Penal
Code, authorizes a demand for trial, to be made at the
first, or at the second Term, but not afterwards. Price
vs. The State,
4. Provocation by threats will not be sufficient to reduce
the crime from murder to manslaughter, where the per-
son killed is unarmed, and neither making or attempt-
ing any violence upon the prisoner, at the time of the
killing. Hawkins vs. The State,
5. If sufficient time has elapsed for reason to resume
her sway, the killing will be attributed to deliberate re-
venge, and punished as murder. Id.
6. Malice shall be implied where no considerable
provocation appears, and where all the circumstances
of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
Id.
7. If the indictment omits to specify the crime with
which the defendant is intended to be charged, the de-
fect is fatal. The State vs. Woodley,
8. The offence of being an accessory before the fact in
murder, is one that may be committed by a slave; and
one which, if committed by a slave, is to be punished
with death. Thornton (a slave) vs. The State,
9. A slave convicted of murder, but not sentenced, is a
competent witness for the State, on the trial of an-
other slave indicted as accessory before the fact in the
murder.
10. There was a fight between two persons. They were
separated. Thirty minutes afterwards, whilst one of
them was undergoing an examination, as to his wounds,
with his pantaloons down, he was attacked by the
other.
Held, that the two fights were distinct, and that the first
made no part of the second; and therefore, that on an
indictment for the second, evidence of the first was
not admissible. Whilden vs. The State.
11. On an indictment for stabbing, the jury may find a
verdict of guilty of an assault and battery. Id.
12. An indictment charging the accused with the of
fence of trading with a slave without written permis-
sion from his owner, &c., need not charge the name
of the owner or the slave, nor the ownership of the
property traded. Stringfield vs. The State,
13. If the Court charge the jury in a criminal cause,
that if they believe that one of two or more acts, neces-
sary to constitute the offence charged in the bill of in-
dictment be proven, they should find the defendant
guilty, it is error. McLeland vs. The State,
14. When two persons are indicted together, and a true
bill found against both, but one only is arrested, ar-
raigned, and put upon his trial, a general verdict, "We
the jury find the defendant guilty," is sufficiently cer-
tain as to the individual intended. Martin vs. The
State,
15. A juror who, while consulting with his fellow-ju-
rors in a criminal case, refers to another offense, alleged
to have been committed by the defendant, saying "he
is a bad man any how," and especially if he acknowl-
edges that this other imputed crime influenced the ju-
ry in convicting the accused, evinces a bias of mind
that disqualifies him from serving as a juror. Id.
16. The rule stated, as to the taking down of testimony
in cases of felony; and the use to be made of the same.
Conner vs. The State,
17. An indictment or presentment good, although an
impossible day be stated, as that on which the offense
was committed. At any rate, the objection comes too
late after verdict. Id.
18. If jurors, to constitute a panel in a criminal case,
be summoned by bailiffs, it is good. Id.
19. Where the witness in a criminal case, is unable,
from his physical condition, to speak audibly, his an-
swers may be communicated in his presence and hear-
ing by a sworn officer of the Court. Id.
20. Although the crime of larceny may be complete as
|