State v. . McNeill

The Court is of opinion, that a bill of Sfidictmcnt ha\ing been found against the Defendant in *184 the County Court, at December Sessions in 1822, for the same offence, is no defence against the present indictment in the Superior Court; inasmuch as it appears 0H the pleadings, that a nolle prosequi had been entered on the said first indictment prior to the time of pleading in this. That as tjie effect of a nolle prosequi is to put the Defendant, without day, upon tiiat indictment, he becomes, while he is so, amenable on another indictment in any Court having jurisdiction of the offence; otherwise a nolle prosequi would operate as a bar to any other prosecution. The power of issuing new process after a nolle prosequi, cannot affect this question, because no process lias been issued. The plea is, therefore, insufficient and must be overruled. — Judgment reversed.