State v. Bowman

Citation2 N.E. 289, 103 Ind. 69
Case DateSeptember 22, 1885
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

103 Ind. 69
2 N.E. 289

State
v.
Bowman.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Filed September 22, 1885.


Appeal from Morgan circuit court.


Atty. Gen. Hord, for the State.

Buskirk & Duncan, for appellee, Peter Bowman.


Elliott, J.

The trial court quashed the indictment for the alleged reason that the indorsement, “a true bill,” was not properly subscribed by the foreman of the grand jury. The indictment is indorsed as follows:

“Charge:

Selling without license.

William Peterson.

A true bill.

-------, Foreman.”

It appears from the record that William Peterson was the foreman of the grand jury, and the fault in the indorsement is that he signs above the words “a true bill,” and not on a line with the word “foreman.” It has long been the rule that a motion to quash will be sustained unless the indictment is indorsed by the foreman of the grand jury. Johnson v. State, 23 Ind. 32;Heacock v. State, 42 Ind. 393;Cooper v. State, 79 Ind. 206. In the latter cases it is strongly intimated that if the record affirmatively showed that the indictment was indorsed by the foreman, the motion would not prevail. We think the record before us does show this. It appears that William Peterson was the foreman of the grand jury; that the indictment was brought into open court; and that the name of William Peterson is written on the back of the indictment. As there was but one William Peterson on the jury, and as his name appears on the back of the indictment, the sensible and only natural presumption is that the signature on the back of the indictment is that of the foreman of that name appointed by the court. The placing of the name above instead of below the words “a true bill” ought not to destroy the validity of the indorsement, nor should the failure to add the descriptive word “foreman” be permitted to have the effect to render the indictment bad. The name of the foreman is indorsed on the indictment, and the only mistake is in the position in which the name

[2 N.E. 290]

is placed. Bishop gives the proper form for the indorsement of the indictment, and adds: “But it is sufficient in law merely to write his name, with no mention of his official character, because the latter appears of record. For the like reason, where his whole name is in the record, a signature by initials for his Christian name is adequate.” This author also says: “It is immaterial on what part of the bill the foreman's signature appears.” 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. (3d Ed.) § 698.

It is evident that the error in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Helms v. State, No. 31140
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 30, 1968
    ...lie.' Therefore, the facts in Cooper also make that case inapplicable to the matter before us. The appellant cites State v. Bowman (1885), 103 Ind. 69, 2 N.E. 289, for an incorrect proposition. In that case, this court held that it was error to quash an indictment merely because the name of......
  • Sprague v. State, No. 24813.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 24, 1932
    ...jury as stated was sufficient in that respect to repel a motion to quash. Blume v. State, 154 Ind. 343, 56 N. E. 771;State v. Bowman, 103 Ind. 69, 2 N. E. 289. [181 N.E. 509] [2] The question on the motion to discharge the defendant for the reason he was not brought to trial within the peri......
  • Barlow v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • December 12, 1906
    ...Hogan, 31 Mo. 342. And where the signature of the foreman preceded the indorsement "A true bill," it was held sufficient. State v. Bowman, 103 Ind. 69, 2 N.E. 289. Under the foregoing views, there was no error in overruling the motion to quash the special presentment. 3. It was alleged in t......
  • Barlow v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • December 12, 1906
    ...31 Mo. 342. And where the signature of the foreman preceded the indorsement "A true bill, " it was held sufficient. State v. Bowman, 103 Ind. 69, 2 N. E. 289. Under the foregoing views, there was no error in overruling the motion to quash the special presentment 3. It was alleged in the pre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Helms v. State, No. 31140
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 30, 1968
    ...lie.' Therefore, the facts in Cooper also make that case inapplicable to the matter before us. The appellant cites State v. Bowman (1885), 103 Ind. 69, 2 N.E. 289, for an incorrect proposition. In that case, this court held that it was error to quash an indictment merely because the name of......
  • Sprague v. State, No. 24813.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 24, 1932
    ...jury as stated was sufficient in that respect to repel a motion to quash. Blume v. State, 154 Ind. 343, 56 N. E. 771;State v. Bowman, 103 Ind. 69, 2 N. E. 289. [181 N.E. 509] [2] The question on the motion to discharge the defendant for the reason he was not brought to trial within the peri......
  • Barlow v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • December 12, 1906
    ...Hogan, 31 Mo. 342. And where the signature of the foreman preceded the indorsement "A true bill," it was held sufficient. State v. Bowman, 103 Ind. 69, 2 N.E. 289. Under the foregoing views, there was no error in overruling the motion to quash the special presentment. 3. It was alleged in t......
  • Barlow v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • December 12, 1906
    ...31 Mo. 342. And where the signature of the foreman preceded the indorsement "A true bill, " it was held sufficient. State v. Bowman, 103 Ind. 69, 2 N. E. 289. Under the foregoing views, there was no error in overruling the motion to quash the special presentment 3. It was alleged in the pre......
  • 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