Lea v. State
Lea v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The indorsements upon the indictment are amply sufficient to identify it with the one returned by the grand jury, and to authenticate it as an indictment properly returned. If it be conceded that the stamping of his name on its back by the clerk could not be a substitute for his written signature, the defect is cured by the other certificate of filing properly signed by him.
It was not competent for the defendant to prove, for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the State’s witness, Garrett, that he had testified as a witness in many other State cases at the same term of the court; such evidence would not prove nor tend to prove that he ought not to be believed.
We are unable to distinguish the indictment in this case from that in Strawhern & Grizzle v. The State, 37 Miss. 422, which was a prosecution under the same statute as now exists. In that case this court construed the indictment as charging the defendants severally with the commission of separate and distinct misdemeanors, and not with the commission of the same offense. Under this construction it was held that a conviction could be had upon proof that either of the persons indicted had played the games named for money with any person. Whether it is permissible to join in one indictment charges for separate and distinct offenses against separate individuals is not presented by the record in this case, since no objection was taken to the indictment either by demurrer or motion to quash.
We see no error in the action of the court in refusing the application of the defendant for a continuance. Lamar v. The State, 63 Miss. 270.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Rebecca Lea v. State
- Status
- 47 Miss. 39. Acts 1878
- Syllabus
- 1. INDICTMENT. Sufficiency of. Indorsements thereon. Section 3006, Code 1880. Case in judgment. The indorsements upon an indictment were, “ a true bill. J. H. M., foreman ■ of grand jury;’' a rubber stamp impression, “filed April 13, 1886, G. C. M., clerk,” and an indorsement, signed by the clerk, M., in his own handwriting, reciting that the grand jury came into open court, more than twelve being present, and returned, under oath, “this true bill, which was then and there received by the court and filed by the clerk, this, the 13th of April, 1886.” ■ Held, that the indorsements thereon were sufficient to identify the indictment with the one returned by the grand jury, and to authenticate it as one properly returned under § 3006, Code of 1880, which requires that indictments be marked “ filed ” and that “ such entry be dated and signed by the clerk.” If the stamped signature of the clerk was not good, it was cured by the written one. 2. Witness. Credibility of. Evidence. Criminal practice. It is not competent, for the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness •testifying against a defendant charged with “gaming,” to show that such witness has testified in many other State cases at the same term of court, and has received pay for attendance as a State’s witness every day (more than a week’s time) since the taking up of the State docket. ■3. Gamins. Indictment against several pei’sons. Evidence to convict one. Case in ■ judgment. Under an indictment which charges that L., M., C., and P. on a certain date “unlawfully did play at a game of dice for money, to wit, for the sum of ten cents, and for other sums of money,” L. may be convicted upon proof that he had, within the period prescribed by statute for the prosecution of such offenses, played the game named with any person, such indictment being construed to charge a separate offense against each defendant. Strawhern & Grizzle v. The State, 37 Miss. 422, cited. 4. Criminal Practice. Continuance. Affidavit for. Insufficiency of. Case in judgment. L., who was indicted for “ gaming,” filed an affidavit for a continuance, in which she set out that two of her witnesses, J. and G., were absent; that she had caused subpoenas to be duly issued for them; that both were present at the time the crime is alleged to have been committed, and that both would swear that she was not guilty of the act charged; that G. had been in the town where the court was being held the day before, and that he was then only eighteen miles distant at a camp; that she believed that both could be had under compulsory process at the nest term of court to testify in her behalf, and that she had had no opportunity thus far to obtain such process. The district attorney admitted that both witnesses would swear as above set out, and the court refused to continue the case. Held, that the action of the court was correct. Lamar v. The State, 63 Miss. 270, cited.