Babcock & Griffin v. Williams,..............150

Bacon and Gee,

Boykin and Br. Bank at Mobile,....320

Bradford and Hagertv,...

..567

..699

Bradley v. Gibson,..

...406

Bagby, use, v. Harris,..

..173

770

..323

.201

.491

.491

.9

Brassfield, et al. and Pierce,..... .573

Bagby, Gov. and Chandler & Chan- Brazeal's Adm'r v. Brazeal's Distri-
dler,......
butees,...

Bank Br. at Mobile v. Boykin,.......320 Brazcal's Distributees and Brazeal's

Bank of the State and Dew,

Adm'r,

Bank at Decatur v. Douglass,.. .853 Brooks and The State,.....
Bank Br. at Montg'y v. Gaffney, ...153 Broughton, et al. and Colburn et al. 351
Bank at Huntsville and Griffin,
Browder v. The State,
Bank at Decatur v. Hodges,.........631 Brown et al. and Turner et al
Bank Br. at Mobile v. Hood & Stin- Brown and English, et al.
nett,
Brown v. Little,..

Bank P. & M. v. King, Upson & Co. 279 Brownrigg and Roberts,

Bank Br. at Mobile v. James et al. .949; Bunnell v. Magee,

Bank at Decatur v. Johnson,...... .622 Burt and Mitchell,..

Bank P. & M. and Bank of Mobile, 645; Burt v. Parish & Co.

Bank of Mobile v. P. & M. Bank,...645

Bank of State v. Johnson & Jefffries,367
Bank at Decatur v. Spence,

..335

.....

.58

.866

......

.504

..416

.106

.433

.226

.211

Burgess and Holly,

Bush v. Barney,

728

.345

..800

Butler and Pryor & Fisher,.

.418

755

Bank B'r at Mobile and Stinnett & Byrd v. Odem,.....

Townsend,

Bank Br. at Mobile v. Thompson,...295

Bank of Orleans et al. and Wilson, 847

Bank at Montg'y and Whetstone, .875

Barnett and Snedicor,.

Barney v. Bush,

Barney v. Frowner and wife,. .901

Bartlett & Waring and Davenport, 179

Battle v. The Corporation of Mobile, 234

Carter & Womack and Bolling,.

Carville, use, &c. v. Reynolds,

Cawthorn v. McCraw,

Chambers v. Stone & Pope,

Cunningham and wife v. Poole,......615

Daniel and Bird,.

Daniel v. Sorrelle et al...

Darrington and Hall, Weeks & Co. 502

Davenport v. Bartlett & Waring, ... 179

Davis v. Ayres, .

Davis and Carlisle,

292

Hall and Duncan, use, &c ........... ..128

Hanrick & Powell v. Thompson, ...409

Hardie v. Turner,

.110

..858

33 Dew v. The State Bank,

Donnell and Jones & Co.

Donnell and O'Neill,

Davis & Robinson and the Gov'nor 917 Harrison v. Harrison et al.. .........470

Debard v. Smith,

..788 Harrison et al. and Harrison,

..913 Harrison, adm'r, and Harrison,

Harris and Bagby, use, fc...........173

Harris v. Martin,

895

..470

...73

695

.734

Douglass v. The Bank at Decatur,.853

Dumas & Co. v. Patterson et al.....484

Duncan, use, &c. Hall,..

128

Harwood's Ex'r v. Humes,..
Hawkins v. The State,

...659

.137

Shute & Hackett v. McRae et al..

Slade, adm'r, and Crawford

Smith and Debard.................................... .788

Smith v.

Fleming..

Smith & Co. v. Zurcher, use, &c...208) Ticknor & Day v. Wiswall............305

REPORTS

OF

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

JANUARY TERM, 1846.

THE STATE v. BROOKS.

1. The tenth chapter of the penal code provides the manner by which grand jurors shall be constituted, and one constituted in any other mode has no legal warrant. When, however, the board of officers intrusted with the selection of the jury, has made the necessary certificate, there is no mode by which its action can be collaterally called in question or re-examined. 2. Although the board is limited to the selection of individuals who are house-holders and free-holders, and of integrity for character and sound judgment, and cannot lawfully select individuals of various specified avocations, professions and callings, yet the selection of those will not vitiate an indictment found by a jury of which they are members.

3. Under the code, a challenge to the array, or a plea in abatement to the panel, invokes the enquiry only, whetuer the jury has been selected in the mode directed, and on such issue, the certificate of the board is conclusive.

4. This certificate may be made by the attending officers, or the clerk of the county court, when one of them:

5. When the matter of a plea in abatement is the disqualification of a juror, laying out of view the direction to summon free-holders and house-holders, as to which no opinion is given-it must present the constitutional disqualification of conviction for bribery, &c. &c. Matters which exempt individnals from jury service, are not disqualifications which will abate an indictment.