Joe Howland was indicted and tried for the murder of his mother-in-law, Mrs. Della Hay Tliq jury returned a ver
1. When the case was called for trial, the defendant, through his counsel, informed the court that a certain person, not formally connected with the case, had circulated a petition asking for subscriptions to a fund with which to employ counsel to assist the State in the prosecution of the defendant. The defendant introduced a witness who testified that a designated person asked him to subscribe to the fund. Counsel for the defendant then requested the court to follow up the inquiry, to the end that an impartial jury might be obtained. The court stated to counsel that he might examine the person who had solicited subscriptions to the fund; but counsel for the defense declined to do so. The counsel employed to assist in the prosecution stated in his place that he had been employed by the son of the deceased, and that so far as he knew Mr. Johnathan Walker only had contributed to the fee. Thereupon the court excluded from the jury all persons related by blood or marriage to the defendant, the deceased, the prosecutor (the son of the deceased), and Johnathan Walker. The complaint is that the court should have followed up the inquiry, and should have compelled the prosecutor to divulge the names of those who.contributed to the payment of the fee of the counsel employed by him. It is not contended that any of the jurors on the panel contributed to the payment of the fee of counsel, nor is it contended that any of the jurors were related by blood or marriage to any person thus assisting in the prosecution. So far as appears, no one except Johnathan Walker contributed to the payment of the fee, and no juror on the panel was in fact related by blood or marriage to any person connected with the case. In these circumstances, the failure of the court to require counsel for the State to furnish to the court and the accused full information in the premises does not authorize a reversal of the judgment. Unless one or more jurors trying the case were in fact related to some one interested in the prosecution, or unless the accused was compelled to exhaust his peremptory challenges on jurors who were in fact related by blood or marriage to some one interested in the case, the mere failure of the court to prosecute the inquiry did not harm the accused.
2. Pearl Ray, the daughter of the deceased, was the principal witness for the State. She testified, that the defendant came to
3. In his charge the court instructed the jury as follows: “A person shall not be found guilty of any crime or misdemeanor committed by misfortune or accident, and where it satisfactorily appears that there was no evil design, or intention, or culpable neglect.” No error is assigned upon the excerpt from the charge quoted. Upon the theory of accident the court instructed the jury further as follows. “An accident is one of those transactions
In so far as requests to charge were pertinent, they were fairly submitted in the general charge. The failure of the court to charge, and the rulings on the admissibility of evidence, as complained of in other grounds of the motion for new trial, show no cause for reversal. Judgment affirmed.