Hall vs. Holmes and wife....... 179 Harrell vs. Grimes...... Harris adv. Hill...... Harris adv. Loughbridge.. ........... 531 61 Lochrane adv. Pate............... 95 Loughbridge vs. Harris........... 500 655 Martin vs. Huson.. 500 McAffee et al., adv. Sanders... 250 189 McBride ade. Wright..... 234 416 McCarter adv. Turner.................................. 491 616 McCullough vs. Mitchell........ 495 McDaniel & Strong vs Baugh... 641 McDonald adv. Davis....... 205 McDonald et al. adv. Adair..... 506 McGowan adv. Meyer et al..... 416 McLendon adr. Calhoun................. Mercer adv. Stafford........... 257 Merrill vs. Whitaker et al........ 403 Meyer et al., vs. McGowan...... 416 Meyers, Cohen & Co. et al., 226 47 623 121 Mims vs. Ross et al.... Mitchell adr. McCullough...... 495 Mock adv. Clarke et al........... 240 Huson adv. Martin..... Jackson vs. Walker and Wife.. 217 Nicholas vs. Hovenor........ 352 289 325 Peyton vs. Lamar et al........... 131 Phillips vs. Solomon.........192-518 Baber....... Rachels et al., adv. Ellis........ 175 Raden vs. Thompkins............ 163 The Ordinary of Baldwin coun- The Ga. R. R. & Bk'g Co. adv. 244 ............. ............ 392 234 656 Ware vs. Ware et al............... 408 | Worrill et al. adv. Howard..... 397 Wetmore adv. Stone.... 601 Wheeler vs. The State............ 306 White vs. Blasland....... ....... 184 White adv. The Newton Manufacturing Company.... 148 Whitaker et al. adv. Merrell... 403 Worthy vs. Tate. Page 65, "in debt to them" should be, in debt to him. 66 212,"1863" should be, 1860. "362, "January, 1871," should be, January, 1866. 46 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, AT ATLANTA, JANUARY TERM, 1871. Present.-O. A. LOCHRANE, Chief Justice. HIRAM WARNER, JUDGES. GILBERT M. ANDERSON, plaintiff in error, vs. THE STATE OF GEORGIA, defendant in error. 1. An indictment, which alleged the offense to have been committed on the 13th day of August, 1868, and found by a grand jury, drawn according to the laws of the State which existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution of 1868, was a legal and valid indictment, though found subsequent to the date thereof. 2. When the defendant filed a special plea of insanity, but did not insist that there should first be a trial on that special plea, but went to trial on the general issue of not guilty, and relied on the insanity of the defendant to show that he was not guilty of the offense charged, it was not error for the Court to refuse to charge the jury that they might find a verdict either for or against the special plea of insanity, the Court charging the jury that they might find the defendant guilty, under the evidence, or not guilty. 3. There was no error in the charge of the Court to the jury, "that they were the judges of the law and the facts, so as to enable them to apply the law to the facts, and bring in a general verdict, but they had no right to make law; the law was laid down in the Code; it was the prov. ince of the Court to construe the law and give it in charge, and of the VOL. XLII-2. Anderson vs. The State of Georgia. jury to take the law as given, apply it to the facts as found by them, and bring in a general verdict ;" and in refusing to charge as requested by defendant's counsel upon this point in the case. 4. The Court did not err in charging the jury, "that if the condition of the defendant's mind was such that he could distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, and while in that condition, killed his wife, the law would hold him responsible," and in refusing to charge as reques ted. 5. Under the 4599th section of the Code, it was the duty of the presiding Judge to have had the evidence in the case taken down, that is to say, all the legal evidence allowed to go to the jury; but as the record does not show any particular facts given in evidence, which the Court instructed the Clerk not to record, this Court cannot say whether the same were material or immaterial, legal or illegal, or whether the Court in its directions to the Clerk, expressed, in the presence of the jury, any opin ion as to the evidence which was legally submitted to the jury for their consideration. To have made it error under the Code, it must be af firmatively shown that the Court expressed an opinion, in the presence and hearing of the jury, in regard to the evidence legally submitted to them on the trial. 6. It is the right of the witness to have the testimony read over to him, but not the right of the defendant's counsel that it should be so read; the legal presumption is that all the legal testimony in the case was correctly taken down under the direction of the Court. 7. In view of the facts of this case, there was no error in the Court which could have influenced or controlled the verdict, in refusing to allow Dr. Terry to explain to the jury "the structure of the brain, what changes were produced upon it by bodily disease, or how its irri. tation and inflammation was calculated to present to the mind unreal images, upon which a person with a diseased brain might be induced to act, as though the imaginary impressions were real existences." 8. The Court charged the jury that, "if, upon the whole evidence in the case, the jury entertain a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of the pris oner at the time of the commission of the alleged act, they are bound to acquit him :" Held, That after a careful review of the evidence contained in the record, and the errors assigned therein, that the judgment of the Court below in refusing the motion for a new trial should be affirmed. Insanity. Jurors. Murder. Before Judge JOHNSON. Muscogee Superior Court. May Adjourned Term, 1870. At November Term, 1868, of said Court, said Anderson was indicted for the murder of his wife, in said county, on |