
    The State v. Gleason, Appellant.
    
    1. Criminal Practice: change or venue. When a change of venue is awarded in a criminal cause the court should order the removal of the body of the defendant; to the county to which the venue is changed. R. S., sec. 1867. But a failure to then make the order of removal will not deprive the court of the right to make it afterwards.
    2. -: JURORS. The objection that the jurors who tried the defendant were not of the standing jurors selected by the county court, held not well taken,it not appearing but that such latter jurors were engaged in the trial of other causes.
    3. -: -. The statute with respect to the manner of select ing jurors is directory.
    4. -:---. The trial court has the right to direct its officers to summon additional jurors or an entire nanel as the dispatch of business may demand.
    
      Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Edwards, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      Zade. J. Mitchell for appellant.
    (1) The record shows that the change of venue was on account of the prejudice of the inhabitants of the ninteenth judicial district which included St. Charles county. (2) An order transferring the person of the defendant to the custody of the sheriff of St. Charles county was necessary to perfect the jurisdiction of the latter court. (3) The court erred in trying the defendant with a jury of by-standers and in denying him the regular panel of standing jurors.
    
      
      B. G. Boone, Attorney General, for the state.
    (1) An affidavit for change of venue must be supported by legal and competent evidence. R. S., sec. 1859; State v. Bohannon, 76 Mo. 562. (2) When the case was transferred to St. Charles county, its circuit court became possessed of full jurisdiction. State v. 'E llcins, 63 Mo. 159. (3) Statutes in respect to the empanneling of juries in criminal cases are directory. State v. Breen, 59 Mo. 413 ; State v. Pitts, 58 Mo. 556; State b. Knight, 61 Mo. 373 ; Stater. Ward, 74 Mo. 256, and cases cited. It is held generally that a strict compliance with statutory provisions prescribing the time and mode of summoning juries is not necessary. Whar. Cr. L. [3 Ed.] sec. 1041; Thom. & Mer. on Juries, sec. 47. From aught that appears from the record, it may have been that the regular panel had been exhausted by challenges or were engaged in another case. State v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232.
   Black, J.

The defendant and others were indicted in the circuit court of St. Louis county for robbery in the first degree. After one mistrial, a severance was ordered, and the venue changed to St. Charles county, but it would seem no order was then made to remove the body of the defendant to that county. A transcript having been filed in the court to which the cause had been removed, the defendant by his attorney appeared there and moved the court to strike the cause from the docket; the motion was overruled. The St. Louis county circuit court, at next term after the venue was changed, ordered the defendant to be delivered to the jailer of St. Charles county, which was done. The cause coming on for hearing in that court, the defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction and also challenged the array of petit jurors-; the plea and motion were both overruled, and defendant refusing to plead, a plea of not guilty was entered, and upon a trial lie was found guilty.

1. Tbe petition, for a change of venue was based upon two grounds, prejudice of the inhabitants of St. Louis county, and prejudice of the inhabitants of the entire nineteenth judicial circuit, of which St. Charles county is also a part. The claim is that the motion was sustained in its entirety, and that, therefore, the St. Charles circuit court acquired no jurisdiction. But this is a misconception of the record. The order recites that there was good cause for granting the motion because of prejudice of the inhabitants of St. Louis county, and then it is adj udged that the motion be sustained and the venue of the cause changed to the county of St. Charles, and the clerk is directed to forward a transcript of the proceedings to the circuit court of that county. The plain and only effect of the order was to sustain the application as to St. Louis county, and to overrule it, as to the entire circuit. How else could the cause have been removed to St. Charles county? The order is not susceptible of any other meaning. The St. Louis county circuit court should have ordered the body of the defendant removed, when the change of venue was awarded. Sec. 1867, R. S. But a failure to then make the order did not deprive that court of the power to thereafter make it. It was the plain duty of the court to direct the sheriff to remove the defendant to the jail of St. Charles county, even at a subsequent term. The St. Charles circuit court had full and complete jurisdiction when the cause was brought on for trial, and the previous irregularities gave the defendant no right to be discharged. ,

2. The objection to the jurors seems to have been that they were not of the standing jurors selected by the'county court. The bill of exceptions concedes that there was no record entry showing that the.regular, jurors for that term had been discharged. It will be' taken.as a fact that the court had a panel of regular jurors at that term and that they had not been discharged. Still it does not. appear but they were engaged in the consideration of other causes. The statute with respect to selecting jurors has always been regarded as directory. State v. Pitts, 58 Mo. 556 ; State v. Knight, 81 Mo. 373 ; State v. Ward, 74 Mo. 256. The trial court has a right to order its officers to- bring' in additional jurors, or an entire new panel, as the dispatch of the business may demand.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.  