The People vs. Wintermute.
The People v. Wintermute.
1. STATUTES: repeal: effect. The repeal of a repealing act revives the statute originally repealed.
2. : : . The Criminal Code of 1862-3 was repealed by the Act of 1868-9, which was in turn repealed by the Act of 1872-3. Held: That the Code of 1862-3 was thereby revived, and its provisions governed in all criminal proceedings.
3. GRAND JUROR: challenge: when interposed. Under a provision of the statute giving to a person held to answer a charge for a public offense, the right to challenge any individual grand juror, before the jury retires, after being sworn and charged, it is error in the court not to allow the challenge to be made as a matter of right, although no reason is shown why it was not interposed before.
4. : : disqualification. When a legal challenge is properly made to an individual grand juror, and the court refuses to entertain or consider such challenge, the juror against whom the same is made is disqualified, and his presence on the jury vitiates the whole panel.
4. : : right of challenge. The refusal by the court to grant a challenge, legally interposed to a grand juror takes from the party entitled to interpose the same, one of the greatest safeguards guaranteed by law, deprives him of a substantial right, and vitiates all the proceedings.
Writ of Error to the Yankton County District Court.
The defendant was indicted in the court below for the crime of murder, found guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to the Territorial prison for the term or period of ten years. Motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were made and overruled, and the cause was removed to this court by writ of error.
Leonard Sweet, G. C. Moody, Bartlett Tripp and S. L. Spink, for defendant.
J. R. Gamble, District Attorney, and Jason Brown, for the People.
Kidder, J.—The above cause comes before this court from the county of Yankton upon writ of error. Several questions arising upon the motion for a new trial and arrest of judg-
