Musgrave v. State
Decision Date | 22 December 1892 |
Docket Number | 16,579 |
Citation | 32 N.E. 885,133 Ind. 297 |
Parties | Musgrave v. The State |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Vigo Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
T. F Donham, G. W. Fairs and S. R. Hamill, for appellant.
M. C Hamill, J. Jump, J. E. Lamb and --- Davis, for appellee.
The charging part of the indictment upon which the appellant was tried and convicted reads as follows:
We have copied the indictment for the reason that the questions discussed by counsel in arguing the specification in the assignment of errors, assailing the indictment, can not be properly understood from a mere synopsis of that pleading.An additional reason for copying the unnecessarily prolix and confused pleading is that it gives a general outline of the whole case and opens the way to a consideration of the questions argued by counsel, arising upon other rulings.The indictment is justly subject to verbal criticism, for it is overladen with useless matter and lacks the virtues of perspicuity; but such defects supply no ground for sustaining a motion to quash, and certainly no reason for declaring an indictment bad when assailed for the first time on appeal; for, if the material elements of a crime are charged, surplusage will not vitiate the indictment, nor will lack of clearness render it bad.It is proper to say that the crime the indictment describes is one of a complex and intricate nature, and the work of preparing an indictment one of much difficulty.
The rule prescribed by our statute governing the question of the sufficiency of...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Waterhouse
...rights of the defendant can do no harm, and its presence in an indictment will not support an attack thereon (Musgrave v. State [1892], 133 Ind. 297, 304, 32 N.E. 885); but occasions such as the present may arise in which the matter complained of tends, on the one hand, to prejudice the acc......
-
Bader v. State
...subd. 10; Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 57, 58, 6 N. E. 914, 7 N. E. 763, 57 Am. Rep. 77;Jay v. State, 69 Ind. 158;Musgrave v. State, 133 Ind. 297, 32 N. E. 885;Rivers v. State, 144 Ind. 16, 42 N. E. 1021;Drake v. State, 145 Ind. 210, 41 N. E. 799, 44 N. E. 188;Selby v. State, 161 Ind. 66......
-
State v. Fraker
... ... pretenses completes the crime and determines the venue of the ... trial. Stewart v. Jessup, 51 Ind. 413; State v ... House, 55 Ia. 466; State v. Shaeffer, 89 Mo ... 276; State v. Dennis, 80 Mo. 589; Norris v ... State, 25 Ohio St. 217; Musgrave v. State, 32 ... N.E. 885; 2 Bishop's New Crim. Law, sec. 488; 1 ... Bishop's New Crim. Law, sec. 723; Bishop's Crim ... Proc., secs. 53-58-61. (6) In order to establish the crime of ... obtaining money by false pretenses, or attempting to obtain ... money by false pretenses, it is not ... ...
-
Bader v. State
... ... nature that the accused has not been harmed by them, are not ... cause for reversal in this court. § 2063, subd. 10, ... Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 584, § 192; Billings ... v. State (1886), 107 Ind. 54, 57, 58, 57 Am. Rep ... 77, 6 N.E. 914; Jay v. State (1879), 69 ... Ind. 158; Musgrave v. State (1893), 133 ... Ind. 297, 32 N.E. 885; Rivers v. State ... (1896), 144 Ind. 16, 42 N.E. 1021; Drake v ... State (1896), 145 Ind. 210; Selby v ... State (1904), 161 Ind. 667, 69 N.E. 463; ... Fisher v. State (1891), 2 Ind.App. 365, 28 ... N.E. 565; Agar v. State, (1911), ... ante, ... ...