The State v. Duggins
| Decision Date | 17 December 1896 |
| Docket Number | 17,606 |
| Citation | 45 N.E. 603,146 Ind. 427 |
| Parties | The State v. Duggins |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Floyd Circuit Court.
Reversed.
W. A Ketcham, Attorney-General, W. C. Utz, M. W. Funk and Merrill Moores, for State.
Kelso & Kelso, for appellee.
It appears from the record "that on the 20th day of December, 1894, the same being the seventieth judicial day of the October term, 1894, of the Floyd Circuit Court," an "affidavit and information were filed in the clerk's office of" said court. Each said affidavit and information charged that the appellee, "on the 6th day of November, 1894, at said county of Floyd, and State of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and in a rude, insolent and angry manner touch, strike, pull, push grasp and wound one Annie Schaum, a woman then and there being, with intent then and there and thereby unlawfully feloniously, forcibly and against her will to ravish and carnally know her, the said Annie Schaum," contrary, etc.
The file mark upon each, said affidavit and information, copied into the record, discloses a filing thereof on said 20th day of December, 1894.
The appellee was arrested upon a warrant issued on said last named day, and on the following day gave bond for his appearance on the first day of the next term of said court. At the next term of said court, the appellee appeared in person and by counsel, and moved to quash said information, which motion was sustained, an exception was reserved, and that ruling is the only assigned error in this court.
We have not been favored with a brief on behalf of the appellee, and are not advised as to the reasons supporting the action of the trial court, further than as counsel for the appellant have stated that in the argument, in the lower court in support of the motion, it was insisted (1) that the affidavit and information were filed in the clerk's office instead of having been filed in open court; (2) that allegations should have been made that the court was in session and that the grand jury had been discharged for the term; and (3) that there had been no order-book entry of the filing of such affidavit and information.
The first and third of these objections, to the filing of an affidavit and information, have been held untenable. Masterson v. State, 144 Ind. 240, 43 N.E. 138; State v. Matthews, 129 Ind. 281, 28 N.E. 703.
It was held in the first of these cases that the court would know judicially that the day of the filing was in term time, and that it was sufficient if the filing was in the clerk's office. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial