Page:Stewart v. State.pdf/11

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
730
Stewart vs. State.
[13

their constitution; because, under such circumstances, the trial "must necessarily have been precipitated with haste, and without that deliberation and reflection on the part of the court which is due as a right in the course of law to an accused in so solemn and awful a position."

The right of the plaintiff in error here to be discharged, will depend upon the construction to be given to the legislation on this subject. Section 179, title "Criminal Proceedings," Digest, provides that if any person indicted for any offence and committed to prison shall not be brought to trial before the end of the second term of the court having jurisdiction of the offense, which shall be held after the finding of such indictment, he shall be discharged so far as relates to the offence for which he was committed, unless the delay shall happen on the application of the prisoner. Section 180 contains a similar provision in respect of persons indicted and held to bail, and not brought to trial at the end of the third term. Section 181 provides that nothing in the two preceding sections shall be so construed as to discharge any person, who may have been indicted for any criminal offence, on account of the failure of the judge to hold any term of the court, or for the want of time to try such person at any term of the court. Section 182 is as follows: "If, when application is made for the discharge of any defendant, under either of the three preceding sections, the court shall be satisfied that there is material evidence which cannot be had, that reasonable exertions have been made to procure the same, and that there is just ground to believe that such evidence can be had at the succeeding term, the cause may be continued to the next term, and the prisoner remanded, or admitted to bail, as the case may require.

Under ordinary circumstances, the State has the same right to a continuance in criminal cases, and for like causes, which the defendant has, (ib. sec. 168); and the restriction upon this rigiht, equally applicable to both parties, is that no suit shall be twice continued for the same cause.

In order to ensure, as far as it could reasonably be expected by legislation, the dispatch of the public business, besides the