Page:Stewart v. State.pdf/7

Rh for want of time to try it at that term. The next term of the Hot Spring circuit court was held on the 4th Monday in February, 1851, pursuant to an act of the general assembly, begun in November, 1850, changing the times for the holding of that court. At the February term, 1851, the defendant presented his application, setting out that he had been in prison ever since the finding of the indictment at the September term, 1848, of the Clark circuit court, and after reciting the various proceedings had in the cause, as they appeared of record, prayed to be discharged from further imprisonment and prosecution in the cause. This application was overruled, and a venire facias ordered to issue for a panel of thirty-eight petit jurors for the trial of the cause. The defendant, on the next day, protesting that he was entitled to be discharged, filed his motion and affidavit for a continuance, because of the absence of his witnesses, none of whom, as he represented were in attendance in consequence of the change made in the time of holding the court by the act of the last General Assembly, and of which change he believed his witnesses were not apprised. The application for continuance was overruled. When the cause was called for trial on a subsequent day of the term, the defendant objected, because a list of the jurors summoned in the cause had not been delivered to him, and he asked that the court direct the sheriff to serve him with a list of jurors, and that he might have the time allowed by law to inspect the same. It appears, from the return of the sheriff upon the venire facias, that he had summoned a panel of thirty-eight jurors for the trial of the cause, and had delivered a list of them to the defendant more than forty-eight hours before the calling of the cause for trial. The objection of the defendant consisted in this: That, in the list furnished the defendant, was the name of William A. Ewing, who had been returned upon the venire facias among the jurors embraced in the panel, by the name of Newton A. Ewing; and that one Armistead Jordan, who had been returned upon the venire, was named in the list delivered to the defendant as Armes Jordan; and that the names of certain other jurors were written out in full in the list delivered to the