State v. Agnew

Decided November 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1889-11-15

H. F. Thomason, Judge. Agnew was indicted and on trial for the sale of intoxicating liquors without a license. After the evidence for the State had been closed, and while a witness for the defense was being examined, the court discovered that the indorsement, “A true bill,” on the back of,the indictment had not been signed by the foreman of the grand jury.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1927

9 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam :

¶1Indictment. The provision that the foreman of the grand jury shall sign the indorsement, “A true bill,” upon indictments, is directory, and the objection to the irregularity is waived, unless made before pleading. People v. Lawrence, 21 Cal., 372; State v. Mertens, 14 Mo., 94; State v. Creighton, 1 Nott & McCord, 256; Wam-kod-chow-neck-kow v. U. S., Morris, 1 Iowa, 332; State v. Cox, 6 Ire., 440; State v. Powell, 24 Texas, 135; State v. Murphy, 47 Mo., 274; State v. Shipley, 10 Minn., 223; State v. Brandon, 28 Ark., 411; State v. Johnson, 33 Ark., 174.

¶2Reverse and remand, with directions to put defendant upon his trial.