State v. Arnold

• Citation: 144 Ind. 651,43 N.E. 871
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
• Decision Date: 24 April 1896
• Parties: STATE v. ARNOLD.

144 Ind. 651

43 N.E. 871

STATE

v.ARNOLD.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 24, 1896.

Petition for rehearing. Overruled.

For original opinion, see 42 N. E. 1095.

HACKNEY, C. J.

Counsel for appellee have supported their petition for a rehearing by an earnest and able brief, presenting again all of the questions considered originally, and adding an attack upon the indictment. Counsel expressly recognize the rule that a rehearing is never granted that points may be presented for the first time. Accepting, for the purposes of the attack, the court's conclusion that the motion of the appellee that judgment be not rendered against him, on a motion in arrest of judgment, it is insisted that the question of the sufficiency of the indictment to charge a public offense was made. It may well be doubted, we think, if that question is presented, any more than that the grand jury had no authority, or any other reason not stated in the motion. However, the attack made upon the indictment is that it insufficiently charges the persons to be defrauded, and the persons whose money was sought to be obtained, and did not “negative the averments as to the alleged false representations.” The charge was that the appellee and others conspired, etc., “to defraud divers citizens of the county of Whitley, and the public generally,” and to fraudulently, etc., “obtain from divers citizens of the county of Whitley, by means of said false pretenses and representations,” which were then set out. While not passing upon the question, it may be well to note the cases of Woodworth v. State (present term) 43 N. E. 933;Chandler v. State (present term) 141 Ind. 106, 39 N. E. 444;Campton v. State, 140 Ind. 442, 39 N. E. 916;Nichols v. State, 127 Ind. 406, 26 N. E. 839,-where it is held that mere defects or uncertainties in criminal pleading, or the imperfect statement of an essential element of a public offense, will not sustain a motion in arrest of judgment. We have again investigated the questions originally presented, and find no reason to change our views expressed in the former opinion. The petition is overruled.