Ledgerwood v. State

Citation33 N.E. 631, 134 Ind. 81
Case DateFebruary 23, 1893
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

134 Ind. 81
33 N.E. 631

LEDGERWOOD
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 23, 1893.


Appeal from circuit court, Daviess county; D. J. Hefron, Judge.

Bazil Ledgerwood was convicted of arson, and appeals. Affirmed.

[33 N.E. 632]


Thos. M. Clark, C. S. Dobbins, and A. J. Padgett, for appellant.

McCABE, J.

The appellant was convicted by the circuit court on a plea of guilty on an indictment charging him and Samuel Harbin with arson, and each was sentenced to the state's prison for the period of 17 years, and the court fined each of them $100, and rendered judgment accordingly. The appellant alone appeals.

The errors assigned are: (1, 2) That the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense; (3) the court had no jurisdiction of the subject; (4) no jurisdiction over the person of appellant; (5) error in overruling appellant's motion to be discharged; (6) error in permitting the state to file counter motions and affidavits to appellant's motion for discharge; (7) error in overruling the motion to strike out parts of said counter affidavits; (8) error in overruling appellant's motion in arrest of judgment; and (9) error in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.

There were two counts in the indictment; therefore, if either count was sufficient, there was no error in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment. Bryant v. State, 106 Ind. 549, 7 N. E. Rep. 217. The first count reads as follows, omitting the formal part: “That Bazil Ledgerwood and Samuel Harbin, on the 7th day of October, 1891, at and in the county of Daviess, in the state of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully, willfully, maliciously, and feloniously set on fire and attempt to turn down the county courthouse, situate in the city of Washington, in Daviess county, in the state of Indiana, which county courthouse was and there the property of Daviess county, and then and there of the value of fifty thousand dollars.” We think this count is sufficient in its statement of the facts constituting the offense defined by section 1927, Rev. St. 1881, as amended by the act approved March 9, 1891, to withstand a motion in arrest. Acts 1891, p. 402. It is insisted by appellant's counsel that the latter act is invalid, because it does not define the crime of arson, and in support of that contention they cite the statute which provides that “crimes and misdemeanors shall be defined, and punishment therefor fixed, by statutes of this state, and not otherwise.” Rev. St. 1881, § 237. This statute was enacted in 1852, as the second section of an act entitled “An act declaring the law governing this state,” approved May 31, 1852. 1 R. S. 1876, p. 605. All that part of the act relating to what laws were in force, and especially that part adopting the English common law with certain exceptions, had substantially been in force in this state before. Indeed, the English common law, with the exceptions mentioned, had been adopted in this state as far back as the year 1795 by the governor and judges of the then territory, and that provision was substantially re-enacted by the territorial legislature in 1807, and has been substantially re-enacted at every revision of our statutes since that time. Stevenson v. Cloud, 5 Blackf. 91, 92. But in the act of 1852, above referred to, the provision as to the definition of crimes and misdemeanors was added for the first time, it being the first provision of the kind ever adopted in this state. In support of their construction of the statute above cited appellant's counsel cite: Rosenbaum v. State, 4 Ind. 599;Smoot v. State, 18 Ind. 18;State v. President, etc., of Ohio & M. R. Co., 23 Ind. 362;State v. Johnson, 69 Ind. 85;Stephens v. State, 107 Ind. 185, 8 N. E. Rep. 94. We have examined these cases, and find them not at all in point, for reasons so obvious that further comment on them is unnecessary.

The appellant's attorneys further seek to support their contention by citing Hackney v. State, 8 Ind. 494;Jennings v. State, 16 Ind. 335; and Marvin v. State, 19 Ind. 181. It must be conceded that these cases all directly support appellant's contention, and hold that a statute that does not define a public offense with some degree of minuteness is void, because not in conformity to the first statute above

[33 N.E. 633]

quoted. But these cases, and others like them, were all overruled by this court in Wall v. State, 23 Ind. 150. That case has been followed by an unbroken line of decisions by this court until the present time. But the ground upon which Frazer, J., speaking for the whole court, placed the decision in that case, has given rise to some confusion as to the real condition of our criminal code. That able jurist in that case said: “That the legislature cannot in such a matter impose limits or restrictions upon its own future action, and that, when two statutes are inconsistent, the last enactment stands as the law, are very plain propositions, which, we presume, will never be controverted. It follows that the act of May 31st, if in conflict with the act of June 10th, [which was the date of the enactment of the Criminal Code of 1852,] is so far repealed by the latter act. To hold that the legislature may, by mere exercise of legislative power, say what a future legislature may or may not do, would be but to declare that the whole legislative power of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Richardson v. State, No. 67S01-9910-CR-506.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 1, 1999
    ...788 (1887); Pehlman v. State, 115 Ind. 131, 17 N.E. 270 (1888); Freeman v. State, 119 Ind. 501, 21 N.E. 1101 (1889); Ledgerwood v. State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 N.E. 631 (1893); State v. Reed, 168 Ind. 588, 81 N.E. 571 (1907); Woodworth, 185 Ind. 582, 114 N.E. 86; Anderson v. State, 187 Ind. 94, 1......
  • Filipiak, In re, No. 28897
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 16, 1953
    ...had. It cannot be filed or acted upon when a plea of guilty has been entered and judgment is rendered thereon. Ledgerwood v. State, 1892, 134 Ind. 81, 91, 33 N.E. 631; Meyers v. State, 1901, 156 Ind. 388, 59 N.E. 1052; Jackson v. State, 1903, 161 Ind. 36, 37, 67 N.E. 690; Trattner v. State,......
  • Freeman v. United States, 311.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 25, 1915
    ...v. State, 114 Wis. 193, 89 N.W. 128; People v. Reilly, 53 Mich. 260, 18 N.W. 849; People v. Felix, 45 Cal. 163; Ledgerwood v. State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 N.E. 631. But in United States v. Harding, 1 Wall.Jr. 127 Fed.Cas.No. 15,301 [227 F. 756] (1846), the Circuit Court of the United States for t......
  • Tumulty v. State, No. 48A02-9409-CR-539
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 28, 1995
    ...a motion for a new trial and that motion was available only if the conviction was entered after a trial. See Ledgerwood v. State (1893), 134 Ind. 81, 91, 33 N.E. 631, 634-35 ("The motion for a new trial was properly overruled, because there had been no trial, and a new trial can only be gra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • Richardson v. State, No. 67S01-9910-CR-506.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 1, 1999
    ...788 (1887); Pehlman v. State, 115 Ind. 131, 17 N.E. 270 (1888); Freeman v. State, 119 Ind. 501, 21 N.E. 1101 (1889); Ledgerwood v. State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 N.E. 631 (1893); State v. Reed, 168 Ind. 588, 81 N.E. 571 (1907); Woodworth, 185 Ind. 582, 114 N.E. 86; Anderson v. State, 187 Ind. 94, 1......
  • Filipiak, In re, No. 28897
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 16, 1953
    ...had. It cannot be filed or acted upon when a plea of guilty has been entered and judgment is rendered thereon. Ledgerwood v. State, 1892, 134 Ind. 81, 91, 33 N.E. 631; Meyers v. State, 1901, 156 Ind. 388, 59 N.E. 1052; Jackson v. State, 1903, 161 Ind. 36, 37, 67 N.E. 690; Trattner v. State,......
  • Freeman v. United States, 311.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 25, 1915
    ...v. State, 114 Wis. 193, 89 N.W. 128; People v. Reilly, 53 Mich. 260, 18 N.W. 849; People v. Felix, 45 Cal. 163; Ledgerwood v. State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 N.E. 631. But in United States v. Harding, 1 Wall.Jr. 127 Fed.Cas.No. 15,301 [227 F. 756] (1846), the Circuit Court of the United States for t......
  • Tumulty v. State, No. 48A02-9409-CR-539
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 28, 1995
    ...a motion for a new trial and that motion was available only if the conviction was entered after a trial. See Ledgerwood v. State (1893), 134 Ind. 81, 91, 33 N.E. 631, 634-35 ("The motion for a new trial was properly overruled, because there had been no trial, and a new trial can only be gra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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