United  States  v.  Stowell,  2  Curt.  C.  C.  The  State,  26  Ark.  260;  Gruber  v.  The

153,  170 ;  The  State  v.  Thornton,  13  Ire.  State,  3  W.  Va.  699  ;  People  v.  Webb,  38

256;  The  State  v.  Thompson,  3  Hawks,  Cal.  467;  People  v.  Cage,  48  Cal.  323;

613.    And  see  Rex  v.  Roper,  1  Crawf.  &  Hines  v.  The  State,  24  Ohio  State,  ,134;

Dix  C.  C.  185 ;  Rex  v.  Wade,  1  Moody,  King  v.  People,  5  Hun,  297 ;  O'Brian  v.
86.     The  cases  of  Newsom  v.  The  State,  Commonwealth,  9    Bush,    333 ;    Joy  v.
2  Kelly,  60,  Reynolds  v.  The  State,  3  The  State,  14  Ind.  139.
671


§  1018  CONSEQUENCES.  [BOOK  VIH.
The  jeopardy  having  thus  attached,  the  prosecuting  officer  is  not
entitled  during  the  trial  to  enter  a  nol.  pros?-  or  if  he  enters  it
even  with  the  consent  of  the  judge,  or  if  he  withdraws  a  juror
and  so  stops  the  hearing,  the  legal  effect  is  an  acquittal.^  The
defendant  is  entitled  to  have  a  verdict  of  not  guilty  returned  by
the  jury  ;  but,  if  this  is  not  done,  he  may  still  claim  his  discharge,
and  he  is  not  to  be  brought  again  in  jeopardy  for  the  same
offence.^

§  1017.  Nolle  Prosequi  after  Verdict.  —  After  a  conviction,  and
before  judgment,  the  officer  may  nol.  pros,  a  part  *  or  even  the
whole  ^  of  the  indictment ;  ^  but  there  is  no  doubt,  that,  in  such
a  case,  the  prisoner  cannot  be  prosecuted  for  the  same  matter
anew.
