
    Lee v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Murder.
    
    1. Special venire for Mai of capital case. —The statute which requires that the special venire iu a capital case shall include “those summoned on the regular juries for the week” (Eev. Code, § 4173), as shown by a subsequent section (4177), means the regular jurors who are “in attendance,” and does not include those who, though summoned as regular jurors, were excused or discharged when the regular juries were organized.
    2. Sufficiency of indidment, m averment of defendant's name. — Under our liberal statutory provisions (Eev. Code, § 4113), the Christian name of the defendant may be averred under an alias.
    
    Eboh the Circuit Court of Pike.
    Tried before the Hon. H. D. Clayton.
    The indictment in this case, which was found at the October term, 1875, charged that the prisoner, “ Eli E. Lee, alias Tobe Lee, unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, killed George W. Carroll, by shooting him with a pistol.” The defendant pleaded not guilty, and the trial was had on- issue joined on that plea. On the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows, the defendant moved to quash the venire, because the list of jurors specially summoned for his trial did not contain the names of all the regular jurors who had been summoned for the week, five of them having been excused by the court when organizing the regular juries. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted. After conviction, tbe defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on account of tbe insufficiency of tbe indictment in averring bis name under an alias. Tbe court overruled tbe motion, and pronounced judgment according to tbe verdict of tbe jury, sentencing bim to imprisonment in tbe penitentiary for tbe term of forty years.
    W. D. Roberts, for tbe prisoner.
    Jno. W. A. Sanpoed, Attorney-General, for tbe State.
   STONE, J. —

In Floyd v. The State, at tbe present term, we decided tbe main question in tbis cause adversely to tbe present appellant. Tbe Circuit Court did not err in refusing to quasb tbe venire.■ — See Rev. Code, § 4177.

We do not tbink there is any thing in tbe objection, that tbe Christian name of tbe defendant is stated under an alias dietus. Some ancient authorities look that way; but such technicality is at war with tbe spirit of our statutes.— Rev. Code, § 4118; Skinner v. The State, 30 Ala. 524; Bryant v. The State, 36 Ala. 2701 Bish. Cr. Proc. §§ 678, 681.

Judgment of Circuit Court affirmed.  