Chase v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1880 |
| Citation | 50 Wis. 510,7 N.W. 376 |
| Parties | CHASE v. STATE OF WISCONSIN. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Chippewa county.
Carl C. Pope, for plaintiff.
Alex. Wilson, Att'y Gen., for defendant.
The plaintiff in error was tried for murder upon an information filed by the district attorney of Chippewa county, in the circuit court of that county, and upon such trial he was convicted of murder in the first degree. After verdict and before judgment the defendant moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. Both motions were overruled, and the defendant was sentenced upon the verdict.
No bill of exceptions was settled in the case, and no exceptions allowed by the circuit judge. The case is brought to this court upon a writ of error. This court cannot, therefore, pass upon any questions except such as appear upon the face of the record. Peglow v. The State, 12 Wis. 534;Kneifle v. State, 13 Wis. 369. This rule is so well established in civil actions that it is unnecessary to cite authorities in its support.
The only error alleged by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error against the record, is that the information is not sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. The following is a copy of the information:
(Omitting title.)
“I, William R. Hoyt, district attorney for said county, hereby inform the court, that on the thirteenth day of December, in the year 1878, at said county, Charles William Chase, in and upon one Frank Goodhue, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault, and that the said Charles William Chase, a certain revolver then and there loaded and charged with gunpowder and leaden bullets, then and there feloniously, willfully, and of his malice aforethought, did discharge and shoot off, to, against, and upon the said Frank Goodhue, and that the said Charles William Chase, with leaden bullets aforesaid, out of the revolver aforesaid, then and there, by force of the gunpowder aforesaid, by the said Charles William Chase discharged and shot off, in and upon the head and body of the said Frank Goodhue, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did strike, penetrate, and wound, giving the said Frank Goodhue, then and there, with the leaden bullets aforesaid, so as aforesaid shot and discharged and sent forth out of the revolver aforesaid, by the said Charles William Chase, in and upon the head and body of him, the said Frank Goodhue, mortal wounds, of which mortal wounds the said Frank Goodhue, on said thirteenth day of December, 1878, died.
Second. That he, the said Charles William Chase, in the county aforesaid, on the thirteenth day of December, 1878, aforesaid, with force and arms, in and upon one Frank Goodhue, did make an assault, and that the said Charles William Chase, with a certain slung-shot and revolver, the said Frank Goodhue, in and upon the head of the said Frank Goodhue, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did strike, bruise, and wound, giving the said Frank Goodhue, then and there, with the slung-shot and revolver aforesaid, in and upon the head of the said Frank Goodhue, mortal wounds, of which mortal wounds the said Frank Goodhue, on the thirteenth day of December, A. D. 1878, died; so that the said Charles William Chase the said Frank Goodhue, in manner and form aforesaid, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder, against the peace and dignity of the state of Wisconsin.
+---------------------------------------+
¦Dated December 18, 1878.¦WM. R. HOYT,¦
+---------------------------------------+
District Attorney.”
It is urged that the information contains two counts. That in the first count there is no allegation that the defendant did, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, murder the deceased; and that the second count is bad because it is not stated at the beginning of the count that the district attorney of the proper county presents the same; and, second, that it does not charge that the defendant feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought assaulted the deceased. It will be seen, by an examination of the first count in the information, that the assault and wounding of the deceased are charged, with time and place, to have been made and done by the defendant, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought; and also charges that the wounds so given by the defendant to the deceased were mortal wounds, of which mortal wounds the deceased then and there died, but omits the words of conclusion which are found in a common-law indictment for murder, viz.: “That the defendant in manner and form then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder the deceased.” Whether an information under our statute would be bad without this formal conclusion, when all the facts necessary to be proved in order to establish the guilt of the defendant are properly set forth therein, with proper words charging them to have been done feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought need not be determined in this case. The object of all pleadings, in both criminal and civil actions, is to inform the opposite party of the facts, upon the proof of which the state, or person who is the plaintiff, relies as the foundation of the judgment sought against the defendant;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henning v. The State
...... failure of the pleader to state it will not, under our. criminal code, however it may have been at common law,. vitiate the indictment. The adjudged cases very fully support. our conclusion that. [6 N.E. 806] . the indictment is not fatally defective. Chase v. State, 50 Wis. 510, 7 N.W. 376; State v. Stanley, 33 Iowa 526; State v. O'Neil, 23 Iowa 272; Evans v. People, 12 Mich. 27; People v. McDonald, 9 Mich. 150; Anderson v. State, 5 Ark. 444; West v. State, . 48 Ind. 483; Dennis v. State, 103 Ind. 142,. 2 N.E. ......
-
Henning v. State
...law, vitiate the indictment. The adjudged cases very fully support our conclusion that the indictment is not fatally defective. Chase v. State, 50 Wis. 510;S. C. 7 N. W. Rep. 376;State v. Stanley, 33 Iowa, 526;State v. O'Neil, 23 Iowa, 272;Evans v. People, 12 Mich. 27;West v. State, 48 Ind.......
-
Hobbins v. State
...in support of this statement. Both support it, and neither has been overruled. State v. Kube, 20 Wis. 217, 91 Am. Dec. 390;Chase v. State, 50 Wis. 510, 7 N. W. 376. We see no reason to overrule them now. The situation is the same as under a general verdict in a civil case where several grou......
-
State v. Gibbons
...exact form of words is immaterial. People v. Vance, 21 Cal. 400;People v. Schmidt, 63 Cal. 28;Edwards v. State, 25 Ark. 444;Chase v. State, 50 Wis. 510, 7 N. W. 376. In a case exactly parallel with the one before us as to the acts charged and the language in which the charge is made, this c......