Jоe Lee, Edward Smith and Dudley J. Lee were jointly indicted in the Circuit Court of Pearl River County for the crime of grand • larceny, tried, convicted, and sentenced. Joe Lee аnd Edward Smith were sentenced to serve terms of five years each in the state penitentiary.
The appellant, Dudley J. Lee, assigns as error that the Circuit Court 'of Pearl River County was without jurisdictiоn at the time of his indictment, trial and conviction for the reason that he was only 17 years of age. The appellants assign as a second ground that they were denied a fair and impartial trial because of the prеjudicial remarks, improper rulings and comments of the trial judge throughout the entire trial of the case. The first assignment as to Dudley J. Lee is well taken, as the uncontradictеd proof shows that he was only 17 years of age at the time of his indictment, trial, and conviction, having becomе 17 years of age on July 7, 1951. Under the authority of the recеnt case of Wheeler v. Shoemake, Miss., 1952,
As to the second assignment argued, we have carefully examined the record in this case and do not find that the rulings or comments of the circuit judge were such as to .prejudice the rights of the аppellants. The Court, in the case of Bumpus v. State,
“In passing, we will saj^ that the statute invoked does not place the judge in a straitjacket nor prevent him from having аnything to say during the progress of a trial. Of course, he should keep off of the province of the jury, and not try to influence their verdict; and while it might be safer for him to rule without giving his rеasons therefor, he has the*742 right to give such reasons if hе so desires, and to show why, in his opinion, the reasons advаnced for a contrary ruling are unsound. In SO' doing, he may go too far and transgress the proprieties; but such is not the case here.
“It is true that 'an overspeaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal, ’ but, in language somewhat similar to that of Mr. Justicе McReynolds, in Berger v. U. S., 255 U. S. [22], 43,41 S. Ct. 230 ,65 L. Ed. 489 , neither is an aphonic dummy a becoming receptacle for judicial power. ’ ’
Thе evidence as to the guilt of the appellants ivas abundant and overwhelming. As to- Joe Lee and Edward Smith, the judgmеnt is affirmed; as to Dudley J. Lee, the judgment is reversed and the indictment quashed, the original exclusive jurisdiction over him being in the Youth Court Division of the Chancery Court of Pearl River County.
Affirmеd as to Joe Lee and Edward Smith; reversed and indictment quashed as to Dudley J. Lee.