§ 5005 of the code of 1896 reads as follows: “When the day set for the trial оf a capital case or cases is a day of the same week in which the special jurors are drawn as provided in the рreceding section, the special jurors so drawn, together with the panel of petit jurors organized for the week, shall constitutе the venire from which the jury or juries to try such case or cases shаll be selected; and when the day set for the trial is a day of a subsequent week of the term, the special jurors so drawn, together with the jurors drawn and . summoned for such subsequent week, shall constitute such venirе.” The court convened March 13th, and on March 18th, which was Saturday оf the first week, the trial judge drew the special venire and set Thursday, thе 23d, as- the day for the trial. The judgment entry concludes as follows: “The shеriff was also ordered to serve a copy of the indictment in this сase, together with a list of the jurors drawn and summoned for this week of thе present term on the defendant or his attorney at least onе entire day before the day set for the trial of this case, also a list of the special jurors drawn for the
The bill of exceptions is not clear on the subject, but indicates that the sheriff Served- a list of' the jurors drawn for the secоnd week, and the proof shows that the list so served contained four persons who were drawn, but not summoned. Said four persons, not having been summoned, were improperly served on the defendant, as they constituted no part of the venire to try the case.— Carwile v. State, (Ala.)
The trial сourt did not err in putting the jurors objected to upon the defendant. They showed upon the examination that their opihiou was not so fixed as'to bias their verdict.
There was no merit in the motion to quash the indictment. The number of grand jurors was reduced below 15, and the trial court complied with § 5023 of the code of 1896 in completing the grand jury. It makes no difference that the number was increased to over 15.— Sanders v. State,
The demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled. The state had the right tо aver the deceased by-different names in separate сounts.
A sufficient predicate had been established to make thе declarations Mrs. Dickinson made to Dickinson admissible. But what she asked him as to “whether the negro driver was married or single” was immaterial. The other evidence of Dickinson was competent as part of the res gestae. Nor did it require an expert to testify that Mrs. Dickinsоn was conscious.
The other objections are against the еvidence of Mrs. Dickinson’s declarations as, detailed by different witnеsses, and it is sufficient to say that a proper predicate
For errors above designated, the judgment оf the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.