The State v. White
| Decision Date | 23 September 1891 |
| Docket Number | 15,911 |
| Citation | 28 N.E. 425,129 Ind. 153 |
| Parties | The State v. White |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Jay Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed, with instructions to overrule the motion to quash the indictment.
A. G Smith, Attorney General, and R. H. Hartford, Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.
J. J M. La Follette and O. H. Adair, for appellee.
The appellee was indicted for grand larceny. There was a motion made to quash the indictment, and sustained, and this ruling is assigned as error.
Omitting the formal averments of the indictment, it reads as follows: "That one Cassius I. White, late of said county, on the 13th day of March, 1888, at said county and State aforesaid, did then and there fraudulently and feloniously, without then and there having the consent of Adelma Lupton, embezzle and convert to his own use twenty-three head of cattle, of the value of eight hundred and seventy-three dollars and ninety-five cents, then and there delivered to the said Cassius I. White by the said Adelma Lupton, by then and there fraudulently and feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying away said cattle, the property of the said Adelma Lupton, from him, contrary," etc.
The statute, section 1933, R. S. 1881, provides that "Whoever feloniously steals, takes and carries, leads, or drives away the personal goods of another, of the value of twenty-five dollars or upwards, is guilty of grand larceny." The sixth subdivision of section 1756, R. S. 1881, declares that no indictment shall be quashed "for any surplusage, or repugnant allegation, when there is sufficient matter alleged to indicate the crime and person charged." The question to determine is whether, by the omission of all surplus and repugnant matter in the indictment, there still remain sufficient allegations "to indicate the crime and person charged." Omitting the surplus and repugnant matter, this indictment may be read as follows: The grand jury charge and present "that one Cassius I. White, late of said county, on the 13th day of March, 1888, at said county and State aforesaid, did then and there twenty-three head of cattle, of the value of eight hundred and seventy-three dollars and ninety-five cents, the property of the said Adelma Lupton, feloniously steal, take, and carry away."
It will be seen that this indictment charges the appellee with feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying away twenty-three head of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boos v. State
...... unlawfully, and feloniously sell, and barter, and give away. one glass of beer, etc., an act in the past tense, is clearly. repugnant to the charge that it was done in December, 19012,. if it is not to be treated as a clerical error, for both of. which there is authority. State v. White . (1891), 129 Ind. 153, 28 N.E. 425; State v. Patterson (1888), 116 Ind. 45, 10 N.E. 289, 18 N.E. 270; Trout v. State (1886), 107 Ind. 578, 8. N.E. 618. Again, by statute, the time at which an offense is. committed, is not [181 Ind. 570] material where the time is. not of the essence ......
-
Boos v. State
...it was done in December, 19012, if it is not to be treated as a clerical error, for both of which there is no authority. State v. White (1891) 129 Ind. 153, 28 N. E. 425;State v. Patterson (1888) 116 Ind. 45, 10 N. E. 289, 18 N. E. 270;Trout v. State (1886) 107 Ind. 578, 8 N. E. 618. [8] Ag......
- White v. State
-
Musgrave v. State
...... indictment which charges a public offense with. [32 N.E. 888] . reasonable certainty is good, although the offense may not be. charged with strict formality, and there may be surplusage in. the indictment. Hobbs v. State, 133 Ind. 404, 32 N.E. 1019; State v. White, 129 Ind. 153, 28 N.E. 425; Fisher v. State, 2. Ind.App. 365, 28 N.E. 565; State v. McDonald, 106 Ind. 233, 6 N.E. 607; Myers . v. State, 101 Ind. 379; Feigel v. State, 85 Ind. 580; State v. Judy, . 60 Ind. 138; Delano v. State, 66 Ind. 348;. Quinn v. State, 35 ......