
    Sanders v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Maltreatment of County Convict.
    
    1. Objections to indictment, on account of defects in grand jwy. — An indictment not found by a legal grand jury, is void, and the objection to its validity may be raised at any time, even for the first time on error ; but, if it was found by a legal grand jury, although the members thereof were not properly drawn or summoned, objection to it on that account can not be raised for the first time on error. — Iiev. Code, §§ 4087, 4187-88.
    2. Grand juries of Quarter Sessions Court of Perry. — It is not a valid objection to an indictment, found at a regular term of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Perry county (Session Acts 1875-6, p. 371), that the 9th section of the act establishing that court requires that, at the terms held at Uniontown,’ grand jurors shall be selected from resident citizens of that beat, possessing the stat-ntory qualifications (Eev. Code, §§ 4063-64), and that all resident citizens of that beat shall be excluded from service as grand jurors at the terms held at Marion ; nor is it a valid objection, that said act requires grand jurors to be drawn and summoned by “ the officers required by law to summon jurors the word summon, as there used, evidently means select, draw, and summon.
    3. Sufficiency of indictment. — An indictment which alleges that the defendant, “being the hirer of one M., a convict sentenced to hard labor for the county, did, during the time of said sentence to hard labor, and during the time said M. was so hired to him, maltreat said convict, by chaining him to a plow for a great number of days, that is to say, four days, and forcing said conviot, while so chained, to plow the lands of said defendant, and to work and labor for him while so chained, to the great punishment and suffering of said convict, without having an order, either of the court trying the offender, or of the Court of County Commissioners, for the confining, chaining, or otherwise shackling of said convict,” — is sufficiently certain and definite on demurrer (Eev. Code, §§ 3687, 4112), without any averment of the court by which the convict was sentenced, or the term of his sentence, or the offense of which he was convicted, or the name of the person or officer by whom he was hired to the defendant, or the term of such hiring.
    Ebom: tbe Court of Quarter Sessions of Perry.
    Tried before tbe Hon. Powhatan Lockett.
    Tbe indictment in tbis case was in tbe following words :
    “ Tbe State of Alabama, ] Perry County, f
    Court of Quarter Sessions, August term, 1876.
    “ Tbe grand jury of said county charge, tbat before tbe finding of this indictment, Green B. Sanders, tbe hirer of one Lewis Massey, a convict sentenced to bard labor for tbe county, did, during tbe time of said sentence to bard labor, and during tbe time said Massey was so hired to bim, maltreat said convict, by chaining bim to a plow for a great number of days, tbat is to say, four days, and forcing said convict, while so chained, to plow tbe lauds of said defendant, and to work and labor for bim while so chained, to tbe great punishment and suffering of said convict, without having an order, either of tbe court trying tbe offender, or of tbe Court of County Commissioners, for the confining, chaining, or otherwise shackling of said convict; against tbe peace,” &o.
    
    Tbe defendant demurred to tbe indictment, assigning tbe following as causes of demurrer: “ 1. Because said indictment does not show by wbat court tbe said Lewis Massey was convicted and sentenced. 2. Because it does not state tbe time when, nor tbe length of time for which, tbe said Massey was sentenced to bard labor. 3. Because it does not state by whom, or by wbat authority, tbe said Massey was' hired to tbe defendant. 4. Because it does not show of wbat offense tbe said Massey was convicted. 5. Because it does not show tbe time when, nor tbe length of time for which tbe said Massey was hired to tbe defendant. 6. Because it does not state tbe facts constituting an offense known to tbe law, with tbat degree of certainty wbicb will enable tbe court, on conviction, to pronounce tbe proper judgment.” Tbe court overruled tbe demurrer, and tbe defendant then pleaded not guilty; and on issue joined on tbat plea, be was tried, convicted, and fined fifty dollars.
    There is no bill of exceptions in tbe record, and no writ of error; but tbe judgment entry recites, tbat tbe defendant bad taken an appeal, and tbe judgment is suspended until tbe decision of tbe appeal.
    JOHN F. Yary, for tbe defendant. —
    1. Tbe indictment purports on its face to bave been found by “ tbe grand jury of said county ” — tbat is, of Perry county. Tbe general statutory provisions relating to tbe drawing and summoning of grand jurors, as contained in tbe Bevised Code, apply only to grand jurors for tbe Circuit Court; and all indictments, found by sucb grand juries, are required to be returned into tbat court. If an indictment, found by a grand jury organized by tbe Circuit Court, should be returned into tbe Court of Quarter Sessions, that court would bave no right to proceed upon it. And yet the indictment in this cáse, on its face, purports to be found by sucb a grand jury. If tbe indictment was in fact found by a grand jury organized under tbe provisions of tbe act establishing said special court, tbe record should affirmatively show it. A critical examination of tbat act, however, will show tbat a grand jury can not be drawn and organized under its provisions — tbat there is in fact a fatal deficiency in tbe law, wbicb can only be remedied by further legislation. Tbe indictment not having been found by a legal grand jury, tbe objection is available on error . — Harrington v. The State, 36 Ala. 236.
    2. Tbe indictment is obnoxious to tbe several objections specifically assigned as causes of demurrer, and tbe demurrer should bave been sustained.— Turnipseed v. The State, 16 Ala. 664; Williams v. The State, 15 Ala. 259; Beasley v. The State, 18 Ala. 555; Anthony v. The State, 29 Ala. 27; 2 Bishop’s Crim. Pro. § 785 ; 1 Árchb. 0. P. (Waterman’s ed.) 85-6; Lewis v. The State, 41 Ala. 414; Sloan v. The State, 67 N. C. 357.
    JOHN W. A. SANFORD, Attorney-General, for tbe State. —
    1. Tbe indictment contained a sufficient description of tbe offense.' — Bev. Code, §§ 3687, 4112; McG-ehee v. The State, 52 Ala. 224; 1 Bishop’s Crim. Pro. § 267.
    2. No objections can be here raised to tbe indictment, on account of defects in tbe organization of tbe grand jury, unless sucb objections were proj>erly presented in tbe court below. — Rev. Code, §§ 4087, 4187; Floyd v. The State, 30 Ala. 511; Bussell v. The State, 33 Ala. 366.
   STONE, J. —

It is contended by counsel for appellant, that under the act “ To establish a Court of Quarter Sessions for Perry county,” approved February 23d, 1876 [see Pamphlet Acts, 371], no legal grand jury can be drawn or impannelled. The reason assigned, for this is, that because the act creating the court, in section 9, declares, “ that there shall be drawn and summoned for said court, by the officers required by law to summon jurors, a grand jury,” &c., and then provides that, at the November term, which is required to be held at Uniontown, the grand jury drawn for such term shall be selected from persons residing in that beat, having the requisite qualifications to serve as grand jurors, and exempts all such persons, so residing in Uniontown beat, “ from service as grand jurors at the terms of said court held at Marion,” that this renders it impossible to draw and summon a grand jury according to the provisions of the Revised Code, sections 4062 et seq. It is contended, that the statute is imperfect, and that no lawful grand jury can be organized under it. If this be so, it would follow, that any indictment, found by such body of persons, would be void, and the objection could be taken at any stage of the proceedings; even here, for the first time. — Harrington v. The State, 36 Ala. 237.

. We can not perceive, however, that the alleged imperfection^ exists. The general law (Rev. Code, §§4062 to 4073, inclusive) furnishes full directions for drawing and summoning jurors; and sections 4080 et seq. direct how the grand jury shall be organized. These sections designate “the officers required by law,” to perform the service of selecting, drawing and summoning jurors. The fact that the persons having, the requisite qualifications to serve as grand jurors, are divided into two classes — namely, those “residing in Union-town beat,” and those not residing in that beat — opposes no insurmountable barrier to the performance of such service. It may render it necessary to have two boxes, in which to deposit the names of the persons selected; or, when the drawing takes place, of laying aside the names of such persons as are not eligible for the particular session of the court. It requires no greater departure from the general routine; and this, we think, the designated officers were authorized to do.

The objection, that the statute uses the word summon, instead of the words select, draw, and summon, is too technical, and can not prevail. The latter was evidently the meaning of the legislature. Moreover, this objection, if valid, can not be raised in tbis form, or in tbis court for tbe first time.— Rev. Code, §§ 4087, 4187, 4188; Floyd v. State, 30 Ala. 511; Russell v. State, 83 Ala. 366; Harrington v. State, supra.

Tbe indictment in tbis case very clearly and explicitly sets forth a misdemeanor. — Rev. Code, § 4112. It negatives tbe right to shackle tbe convict, by averring that it was done by tbe defendant “ without having an order, either of tbe court trying tbe offender, or of tbe Court of County Commissioners ” therefor. Tbe indictment sets forth a case of maltreatment. — Rev. Code, § 3687. Tbe demurrers were properly overruled. If tbe defendant, to whom tbe convict was hired, maltreated him in tbe manner averred in tbe indictment, it is immaterial by what court tbe convict was sentenced, or when sentenced, or for what length of time, or for' what offense be was undergoing punishment, provided tbe court bad jurisdiction, and the term of tbe sentence was unexpired. Nor was it necessary to aver these facts, or tbe name of tbe person or officer by whom tbe convict was let to hire, nor tbe length of time be was so let. Tbe averment in tbe indictment, that tbe person alleged to have been maltreated, was “a convict, sentenced to bard labor for tbe county,” that be was hired to defendant, and that “ during tbe time of said sentence to bard labor, and during tbe time said convict was so hired to him,” be did tbe acts of maltreatment charged in tbis indictment, is sufficient to inform any person of common understanding of what was intended; and would enable tbe court, on conviction, to pronounce tbe proper judgment.— Rev. Code, § 4112. These averments would let in legal evidence of conviction and unexpired sentence of a court having competent jurisdiction, and of a letting to hire of tbe convict, by a person thereunto lawfully authorized.

There is no error in tbe record, and tbe judgment is affirmed.  