78 Miss. 175 | Miss. | 1900
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is presented for appellant with marked ability by counsel appointed by the court, who deserves all credit for hisunremunerated services and laborious and intelligent research, on account of which we regret we cannot concur with him. The accused had every possible point made for him in the court, below and here. Code 1892, § 919, prohibits a judge to preside where he is of kin to any party to the cause, or interested in it, or ‘ ‘ wherein he may have been of counsel. ’ ’ Does the word ‘ ‘ counsel ’ ’ include a district attorney who has had no^ further interest in the case than simply to draw the statutory indictment % This is the only question in this record worthy of consideration or insisted on. A district attorney need not be, and ought never to be, in the grand jury room, unless invited to be there by the grand jury for information “in a case in order that the same, may be presented in the manner required bylaw.” Code 1892, § 1556. He need not draw or even sign an indictment. Keithler v. State, 10 Smed. & M., 192.
The record shows a deliberate murder -for robbery, and no error is found in it, after the most careful examination. Execution of the sentence is set for Saturday, January 5, 1901, between 11 o’clock a.m. and I o’clock p.m., in the manner and at the place as prescribed by law.
Affirmed.