State v. FarrowState v. Farrow
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Freeman
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was convicted by verdict of a jury February 9, 1876, of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced tо sis months imprisonment in the jail of Shelby county. He made a motion to be discharged based on the following state of facts:
The prisoner had beеn tried previously, in 1873, before Judge Flippin; on that trial the evidence had been heard and jury charged when the judge was-*572taken suddenly sick and comрelled to leave the bench; he was not able to resume his place during that term. The bar thereupon, in pursuance of the statute, elеcted L. B. Horrigan as special Judge to hold thе court. Horrigan was the counsel for the prisоner. The jury having the case under consideration, his counsel agreed that they might return their verdict whilе he presided, and the verdict might go on the minutes as if all the trial had taken place before Judge Flippin, it being then supposed that Judge Flippin would be absent but for a few days. The clerk entеred up the proceedings in this form, together with other business done by Judge Flippin before his retirement from the bench; but these entries were not signed by thе judge or clerk until some terms after. In fact, the рrisoner had been tried again and appеal taken to this ■court, the case reversed and remanded, and no effort made to take advantage of it. ■
We do not think there was any suffiсient ground for a discharge of the prisoner. Thе principle of the case of Patrick Moore v. The State, 3 Heis., 493, is cоnclusive of the question. In that case the entriеs were made by the clerk, but never signed by the judge, hе having died suddenly. We said in that opinion that we must loоk to the entries of the clerk in the performance of his official duty with all the presumptions in favor of the regularity and correctness of official action. We think this principle apрlies with more force in the present casе, as we find that it was agreed that what purports to have been doné might be done; and in addition, we hаve the certifi*573cate of the judge to the minutеs as to their correctness from his own knowledge up to the time covered by the agreement. We can see no possible injury that can rеsult to the prisoner from this view. We can have nо question but that what is found in entries of the clerk is cеrtainly the truth of the case. To disregard this would be tо turn a convicted criminal loose upon thе barest technicality. We do not feel called on to do this, nor to make such a precedent.
Affirm the judgment.