
    Young v. The State.
    Indictments may be fonnd at the special terms of the circuit courts.
    ERROR to the Copiah circuit court.
    At the January special term of the Copiah circuit court, 1835, the grand jury found a true bill against William P. Rose for an assault committed on the 25th of said month, on which a bench warrant issued. Rose was taken on the 16th of January, 1836, and entered into bond with the defendant, Young, as security in the sum of 200 dollars. At the May term of said court, 1836, a scire facias issued against Young. At the May term, 1837, a judgment final was rendered against said Young for the amount of the recognisance. Upon petition of the defendant the clerk of the circuit court granted a writ of error returnable to the last December term of this court.
    Harris and Bowie, for plaintiff in error.
    Collins, Attorney-general, contra.
    
   Mr. Chief Justice Shab.key

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question to which our attention has been directed in this case is, whether an indictment can be originated at a special term of the circuit court. The same question was raised before this court in the case of The State v. Byrd, and not regarded as error. The jurisdiction of the circuit courts is fixed by the constitution, and whenever such court can be legally held it must possess all its constitutional jurisdiction. The constitution requires that two circuit courts in each year shall be held in every county, leaving it thus discretionary with the legislature to appoint more terms, if necessary, and by law special terms may be held as often as occasion requires. Although the act providing for the holding of special terms m'ay seem to limit, to some extent, their jurisdiction with regard to the cases to be tried, yet it is believed that the law did not intend (nor could it do so) to interfere with the undoubted jurisdiction of the court in criminal matters.

The judgment must be affirmed.  