Reynolds was indicted of perjury, and the cause having been removed for trial to Sumner Circuit Court, was tried there. Evidence was rejected which the solicitor thought should have been received. The jury found the defendant not guilty, and the solicitor аppealed in behalf of the State to this court. This court is of opinion that the evidence so rejected оught to have been received. But we are also of оpinion that a writ of error, or appeal in the naturе of a writ of error, will not lie for the State in such a casе. It is a rule of the common law that no one shall be brought twice into jeopardy for one and the same offensе. Were it not for this salutary rule, one obnoxious to the government might be harassed and run down by repeated attempts to carry on a prosecution against him. Because of this rule; it is that a new trial cannot be granted in a criminal case where the defendant is acquitted. A writ of error will lie for the defendant, but not against him. This is a rule of such vital importance to the security of the citizen, that it cannot be impairеd but by express words, and none such are used in the act of 1809, ch. 49, § 26. The acts of
We have no jurisdiction over this appeal, and it must be dismissed from our docket.
See Martin v. McNight,