Hart v. State, No. 22,468.

Docket NºNo. 22,468.
Citation181 Ind. 23, 103 N.E. 846
Case DateJanuary 13, 1914
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

181 Ind. 23
103 N.E. 846


No. 22,468.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 13, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Warrick County; Ralph E. Roberts, Judge.

Guy Hart was convicted of arson, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Roscoe Kiper, of Booneville, for appellant. Thomas M. Honan, Atty. Gen., and Thomas H. Branaman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.


Appellant was convicted of the crime of arson. In overruling his motion to quash the indictment, error is claimed.

The indictment charges that appellant did unlawfully, etc., “set fire to and attempt to burn a certain dwelling house, *** of the value of two thousand ($2,000.00) dollars, *** the property of the said Guy Hart, upon which house a policy of insurance for twenty-five hundred ($2,500.00) dollars had been issued by the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, which policy was then and there in force, with the intent to defraud the said Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, *** and did *** unlawfully *** set fire to and burn, and partially destroy said property, to the damage thereof in the sum of two hundred ($200.00) dollars, contrary to the form of the statute, etc.”

[1] The only ground for the motion to quash, here relied on, is the following: “That said indictment does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.” Clause 2, § 2065, Burns 1908. So much of the statute, under which the indictment was returned, as is pertinent here, reads as follows: “Whoever *** burns or attempts to burn any dwelling house, *** the property *** being insured against loss or damage by fire (italics ours)” and the burning or attempt to burn being with intent to *** defraud the insurer, is guilty of arson, etc.” Section 2260, Burns 1908.

It is contended that the indictment is insufficient to repel the motion to quash, because it contains no certain and direct averment that the insurance was against loss or damage by fire. Our Code of Criminal Procedure requires no greater degree of certainty in criminal pleadings than is required in civil ones. The latter on general demurrer, and the former, on the equivalent test of a motion to quash, grounded on clause 2 of section 2065, Burns, supra, must be certain only to a common intent. Agar v. State, 176 Ind. 234, 244, 94 N. E. 819, and cases cited; Domestic Block Coal Co. v. De Armey, 100 N. E. 675;Id., 102 N. E. 99, and cases cited. Certainty, to a common intent, at least under the Code system, is attained when the pleading...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Evansville & T.H.R. Co. v. Hoffman, No. 9466.
    • United States
    • December 20, 1917
    ...Wellington v. Reynolds (1912) 177 Ind. 49, 97 N. E. 155;Wysor Land Co. v. Jones (1899) 24 Ind. App. 451, 56 N. E. 46;Hart v. State (1914) 181 Ind. 23, 103 N. E. 846;Inland Steel Co. v. Smith (1907) 168 Ind. 245, 80 N. E. 538;McMurran v. Hannum (1916) 115 N. E. 238. An omission to comply wit......
  • Kennedy v. State , No. 26090.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 14, 1935
    ...the charge against him, the motion to quash was properly overruled. Agar v. State (1911) 176 Ind. 234, 94 N. E. 819;Hart v. State (1914) 181 Ind. 23, 103 N. E. 846. Neither the bank nor the partnership as such could commit the crime of embezzlement. They act only through their officers. Hen......
  • Page v. State, No. 24105.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 26, 1923
    ...be deemed to allege all that can be implied from the direct allegations therein, by a reasonable and fair intendment.” Hart v. State, 181 Ind. 23, 103 N. E. 846. We are thus led to conclude that the affidavit in question states facts, relative to the charge of “conceal,” from which the sole......
  • Day v. State, No. 26156.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 30, 1934
    ...for review of the court's action in giving them, is insufficient to present any question for our consideration. Hart v. State (1914) 181 Ind. 23, 103 N. E. 846;Howard v. State (1921) 191 Ind. 232, 131 N. E. 403;Underhill v. State (1916) 185 Ind. 587, 114 N. E. 88. Appellant says the court e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 cases
  • State v. Hanks, 21,265
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • June 9, 1917
    ...information the offense with which the defendant was charged; this is too clear to admit of serious doubt." (p. 424.) In Hart v. State, 181 Ind. 23, 103 N.E. 846, the indictment alleged that the property was insured in a policy which had been issued by the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT