State v. Rodgers, No. 21,632.

Docket NºNo. 21,632.
Citation175 Ind. 25, 93 N.E. 223
Case DateDecember 16, 1910
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

175 Ind. 25
93 N.E. 223

STATE
v.
RODGERS.

No. 21,632.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 16, 1910.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Jennings County; F. M. Thompson, Judge.

Homer Rodgers was charged with crime, and from a judgment quashing the indictment, the State appeals. Affirmed.

[93 N.E. 224]


James Bingham, A. G. Cavins, E. M. White, and W. H. Thompson, for the State.
Dixon & Meloy, for appellee.

MYERS, C. J.

Appellee was sought to be charged with the violation of section 8029, Burns' Ann. St. 1908, by an indictment omitting the formal parts as follows: “That one Homer Rodgers, late of said county, on the 15th day of March A. D., 1909, at said county and state aforesaid, being then and there the owner of and the person in charge of a certain manufacturing establishment for the manufacture of lumber and wood products, in which establishment a certain saw, to wit, a certain swinging cut-off saw, was then and there used, did then and there unlawfully fail and neglect to properly guard the aforesaid saw, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided.” The indictment was quashed on motion, and the state appeals. The indictment was quashed as we understand the record, for failure to allege that it was practicable to guard the saw without rendering it useless for the purpose for which it was intended. The statute provides that, “all vats, pans, saws, planers, cogs, gearing, belting, shafting, set screws, and machinery of every description therein (referring to manufacturing and other plants described) shall be properly guarded.” The statute recognizes the use of saws, and the machinery and appliances as lawful and necessary; its prohibition extends to the manner of their use. The Legislature has characterized saws as in themselves dangerous, and has provided that they shall be properly guarded.

What is meant by the phrase “properly guarded”? It is a relative term, and involves the extent of guarding, and the question of the efficiency for the purpose used. To say that a swinging cut-off saw was not properly guarded would be to state a conclusion and not a fact. The state contends that if it was important to show that the saw could not have been guarded it might have been shown as a defense, and that it was a matter for the jury, and not a question of law, and that it is sufficient to charge an offense in the language of the statute, and that is true where the statute defines the offense, and states what acts or omissions constitute it. But that is not true where the statute does not define the offense, and where other sections must be looked to as here, or where the act as here is held necessary to be supplemented by some other elements, or where some other element is involved, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Illinois Car & Mfg. Co. v. Brown, No. 9222.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 11, 1917
    ...render it inefficient or useless,” “without affecting its efficiency or utility,” “so as not to render it inefficient” (State v. Rodgers, 175 Ind. 25, 93 N. E. 223); “without affecting the practical utility of the machinery” (Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Armuth, 180 Ind. 673, 103 N. E. 738); “w......
  • Large v. State, No. 24680.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 19, 1928
    ...149 Ind. 338, 49 N. E. 266;Padgett v. State, 167 Ind. 179, 78 N. E. 663;Hewitt v. State, 171 Ind. 283, 86 N. E. 63;State v. Rodgers, 175 Ind. 25, 93 N. E. 223;Hinshaw v. State, 188 Ind. 147, 122 N. E. 418;Bowen v. State, 189 Ind. 644, 128 N. E. 926;Sherrick v. State, 167 Ind. 345, 79 N. E. ......
  • Weisenberger v. State , No. 24656.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 4, 1931
    ...v. Hullinger, 161 Ind. 673, 678, 67 N. E. 986, 69 N. E. 460;U. S. Board & Paper Co. v. State, 174 Ind. 460, 91 N. E. 953;State v. Rodgers, 175 Ind. 25, 93 N. E. 223. Count 2 is in the language of subsection (2) of section 8250, supra, which refers to subsection 1. Subsection 1 is subdivided......
  • Barber v. State, No. 24556.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 31, 1927
    ...which constitute it, refutes the claim that the indictment is insufficient for failure to use the word “unlawfully.” State v. Rodgers, 175 Ind. 25, 93 N. E. 223. [3] The indictment named the owner of the property injured. It stated the amount of [155 N.E. 821]damage done to that property an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Illinois Car & Mfg. Co. v. Brown, No. 9222.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 11, 1917
    ...render it inefficient or useless,” “without affecting its efficiency or utility,” “so as not to render it inefficient” (State v. Rodgers, 175 Ind. 25, 93 N. E. 223); “without affecting the practical utility of the machinery” (Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Armuth, 180 Ind. 673, 103 N. E. 738); “w......
  • Large v. State, No. 24680.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 19, 1928
    ...149 Ind. 338, 49 N. E. 266;Padgett v. State, 167 Ind. 179, 78 N. E. 663;Hewitt v. State, 171 Ind. 283, 86 N. E. 63;State v. Rodgers, 175 Ind. 25, 93 N. E. 223;Hinshaw v. State, 188 Ind. 147, 122 N. E. 418;Bowen v. State, 189 Ind. 644, 128 N. E. 926;Sherrick v. State, 167 Ind. 345, 79 N. E. ......
  • Weisenberger v. State , No. 24656.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 4, 1931
    ...v. Hullinger, 161 Ind. 673, 678, 67 N. E. 986, 69 N. E. 460;U. S. Board & Paper Co. v. State, 174 Ind. 460, 91 N. E. 953;State v. Rodgers, 175 Ind. 25, 93 N. E. 223. Count 2 is in the language of subsection (2) of section 8250, supra, which refers to subsection 1. Subsection 1 is subdivided......
  • Barber v. State, No. 24556.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 31, 1927
    ...which constitute it, refutes the claim that the indictment is insufficient for failure to use the word “unlawfully.” State v. Rodgers, 175 Ind. 25, 93 N. E. 223. [3] The indictment named the owner of the property injured. It stated the amount of [155 N.E. 821]damage done to that property an......
  • 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