
    Barnes vs. The State.
    A grand jury, empannelled from a venire issued by the county court for twenty-four jurors to the circuit court, is a good and lawful grand jury, and properly empannelled.
    Where an indictment commences, “Slate of Tennessee, Hardin county,” and the offence is laid to have been committed “in the county aforesaid,” the venire is well laid.
    The caption of an indictment, thus, “Circuit Court, November term, 1829,” in figures, is good and sufficient, if it appear from the record, that an indictment was found at that term.
    Where the court gave judgment, “that the defendant should be imprisoned one month, and be fined fifty dollars; that he pay the costs of the prosecution; and that he remain in the custody of the sheriff until said fine and costsbe paid or secured:” Held, that the court had the power and authority to enter such judgment.
    A judgment that a party remain in the custody of the sheriff until the fine and costs be paid or secured, operates as a capias ad satisfacien-dum, and the defendant is entitled to the same privileges as upon that writ to discharge himself, for insolvency.
    The plaintiff in error was indicted-for a riot committed with other persons. The evidence shows he was clearly guilty of the riot. The record in this case shows that the vénire returned by the sheriff, only directed him to summon twenty-four persons; that from these twenty-four, the grand jury was elected and empanelled. The indictment commences thus: “State of Tennessee, Hardin county, circuit court, November term, 1829;” and charges, “that the grand jurors for the State of Tennes-ssee, elected, empannelled, sworn and charged to enquire for the body of the county of Hardin aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, present, that James Barnes (with others) in the county aforesaid, did commit a riot,” &c.
    It appears from the record, “that the grand jury returned into court a bill of indictment against James Barnes, and others, a true bill,1 ’ &.c. Upon the trial the jury found the defendant guilty, and the judgment of the court was in these words: “It is considered by the court, that said defendant be imprisoned one month in the jail of the county of Hardin, that he make his fine to the State fifty dollars, that he pay the costs of this prosecution, and that he remain in the custody of the sheriff until said fine and costs be paid or secured.” From this judgment the defendant prosecuted his writ of error to this court.
    
      G. S. Yerger, for -plaintiff in error.
    
      A. Hays, Att’y. Gen’l. of the 7th Sol. Dist. for State.
   Catron, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The first objection is, that the appointment of the grand jury by the county for the circuit court, was insufficient, because only twenty-four were in the panel.

This court held in the State against Coats, at Jackson, at the last term, that the grand jury was well empannelled in such case. That was like this, as well as several others.

2. It is objected that the venire is not well laid in the indictment. We think this is a mistake. It commences, “State of Tennessee, Hardin county,” and states, the grand jurors of the State of Tennessee, elected, empan-ne^ec^ sworn and charged to enquire for the body of the county of Hardin aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, present, &c. The charging part of the indictment alleges the defendant, (with others,) in the county aforesaid, did commit the offence. This is well. 1 Chit. Cr. L. 194.

3. It is objected, that the indictment is headed, “circuit court, November term, 1829,” in figures. This it is insisted should be in writing. And we are referred to British authorities to show figures will vitiate. 1 Chitty Cr. L. 176. Such precedent statement is unknown in the English courts. The only general marginal statement is, “Middlesex, to wit.” 3 Chit. Cr. L. 194.

The term at which the indictment was found, appears of record by an independent entry, that the grand jury returned into court a bill of indictment against James Barnes and others, for a riot, a true bill, &c. The British authorities refer to the time stated in the body of the indictment, at which the crime was committed. This is in words here.

4. The defendant, by the judgment below, was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, as punishment, and a fine of fifty dollars; that he pay the costs of prosecution; “and that he remain in the custody of the sheriff until said fine and costs be paid or secured.”

It is insisted, that this latter part of the judgment will impose perpetual imprisonment on the defendant, if he be unable to pay or secure the fine and costs. We think the judgment had the effect of a ca. sa. and that the defendant might have discharged himself by taking the benefit of the insolvent act.

There is no ground of objection to the conviction at all tenable, or in fact having a fair claim to notice. The judgment will therefore be affirmed; the defendant imprisoned one month in the jail of Davidson county; and held in custody until the finé and costs are paid, or be discharged by due course of law.

Judgment affirmed.  