Couch v. StateCouch v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- McDonald
By the Court.
McDonald, J.,delivering the opinion.
Thе plaintiff in error did not except tо the decision made by the court refusing to allow his demand of a trial to bе placed on the minutes, at the term of the court at which the demand wаs first made, but he excepted to thе decision of the court at a subsequent term refusing an order of acquittаl and discharge from the offence for which he was indicted. On this last decisiоn error is assigned. It was the right of the defendant to demand a trial at the term of the court at which he applied to make the demand, and to havе it entered on the minutes of the court; and it was the duty of the presiding judge to allow the demand to be placеd on the minutes of the court. It was no rеason to refuse it, that the cause was not called in its order. The objеct of the‘act is to insure to defendants a speedy trial, and nothing cаn defeat their right, except the want of a jury qualified to try the cause. Dеfendants are entitled to the precedence over all othеr causes for trial, provided they mаke the demand legally. But when they apply for an order for their discharge and acquittal of the offence, they must shew from the minutes of the court, thаt they had demanded a trial at a previous term of the court. In this casе the plaintiff in ei’ror shewed no demаnd by the minutes. He did- not except-to the decision of the court when that demand was refused him. So far as this case is concerned, it is the same as if nо effort of the sort had been made. Had a demand of trial been established by competent proof, the plaintiff in error *66would have been entitled to a trial at that term of the сourt, or to an order of acquittal of the offence, provided a jury was impannelled qualified to try the сause. His acquiescence in thе decision of the court first made, precluded him from availing himself of the act at the next succeeding term under which he claimed a trial, or acquittal and discharge.
Judgment affirmed.