Page:Stewart v. State.pdf/1

Stewart vs. State.

By a provision of the bill of rights, the accused, in criminal cases, is entitled to a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury, &c.; but what is a speedy trial, and what consequence will follow as sanction where a speedy trial is denied, are questions to be determined that have to be considered with reference to the existing law, and its practical operation, in the determination of individual rights.

As justly remarked, in the case of Nixon vs. The State, (2 Sm. & Marsh. 507,) by a speedy trial, is intended a trial conducted according to fixed rules, regulations, and proceedings of law, free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, manufactured by the ministers of justice.

The court is of the opinion that the proper construction of section 179, ch. 52, Dig., is that to entitle the accused to be discharged for want of prosecution, there must be, on the part of the State, a failure of three terms to bring him to trial, that is to say, at the end of the second term which shall be held after the finding of the indictment.

Construing the several sections of the statute on the subject together, the court does not favor the opinion that the accused is entitled to discharge, except where the delay is procured by the failure of the judge to bold a term of the court, or for want of time to try him, as would seem to follow from a literal