State v. McIntyre

• Decision Date: 19 September 1882
• Citation: 59 Iowa 264,13 N.W. 286
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. MCINTYRE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

59 Iowa 264

13 N.W. 286

STATE OF IOWA

v.MCINTYRE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed September 19, 1882.

Appeal from Henry district court.

The defendant was indicted jointly with one Eply upon a charge of feloniously breaking and entering a railroad car, with intent to steal certain property therefrom. Upon a trial a verdict of guilty was found, upon which judgment was entered. Defendant appeals.Culbertson & Jones and L. A. Palmer, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen. for the State.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The charging part of the indictment is as follows: “That George Eply and Daniel McIntyre, on the twelfth day of May, 1880, in the county of Henry and state of Iowa, aforesaid, unlawfully, feloniously, and burglariously did break and enter a railroad car in the possession, care, control, and custody of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, a corporation doing business under the laws of Iowa, the owners of said car being to the jurors unknown, in which said railroad car goods, merchandise, and other valuable things were kept for use, sale, and deposit, with the felonious intent the said goods, merchandise, and other valuable things, then and there being found, feloniously to take, steal, and carry away, contrary to the form of the statute, etc. T. A. BEREMAN, District Attorney.” There was a motion to set aside the indictment, and a demurrer thereto, and a motion for a new trial, all of which were overruled. It is claimed these rulings are erroneous because the indictment is insufficient, there being no title to the action on the face of the indictment, as required by the form prescribed by section 4297 of the Code, and for the further reason that the names of the parties are not set forth as required by said form. In answer to these objections it is sufficient to say that the statute makes no requirement that the form therein given shall be literally followed; and it is not a valid objection to an indictment that the name of the offense is omitted or wrongly stated. State v. Hessenkamp, 17 Iowa 25;Same v. Baldy, 17 Iowa 39; Same v. Shaw, 35 Iowa, 575;Same v. Davis, 41 Iowa, 311. The objection that the names of the parties are not set forth as the title of the action is also without merit. The body of the indictment fully sets forth the names of the parties charged, and by what authority charged.

2. It is further claimed that the indictment is insufficient, because it avers that the car which was feloniously broken and entered...