Winlock v. State

• Decision Date: 17 January 1890
• Citation: 121 Ind. 531,23 N.E. 514
• Parties: Winlock v. State.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

121 Ind. 531

23 N.E. 514

Winlock

v.State.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 17, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Knox county; George W. Shaw, Judge.

An indictment for hunting on inclosed land without permission, against Henry Winlock. On conviction defendant appeals.

J. S. Pritchett and H. Burns, for appellant. Orlando H. Cobb and L. T. Michener, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Mitchell, C. J.

The grand jury of Knox county made presentment of the appellant to the circuit court at its March term, 1889. The charge in the indictment is that “one Henry Winlock, late of said county and state aforesaid, did on the 24th day of November, 1888, at said county, unlawfully hunt with fire-arms, to-wit, a shotgun, on the inclosed lands of William S. Ewing, without then and there having first obtained the consent of the said Ewing,” etc. Section 2110, Rev. St. 1881, makes it a misdemeanor to hunt with a dog or dogs, or to hunt or shoot with any kind of fire-arms, in inclosed lands, without having first obtained the consent of the owner or occupant thereof.

It is insisted that the indictment is defective in that it does not describe or identify the land upon which the hunting was done with sufficient certainty. The objection is not maintainable. The offense is charged to have been committed in Knox county, in the state of Indiana, on the inclosed lands of William L. Ewing. The general rule seems to be, where a statute simply provides punishment for an unlawful entry upon the lands of another, without making any provision for the restoration of the land to the rightful owner or occupant, and where locality or place is not an essential ingredient to the offense, no particular description is necessary. A charge in the language of the statute is sufficient. If, in addition to punishing the trespass, the court may order restitution, the indictment must contain a particular description, sufficient at least to identify the thing to be restored. In like manner, in case a nuisance is to be abated, or any other proceeding is to be had against the place, a local description of it, sufficient to point it out with reasonable certainty, is necessary in the indictment. 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. §§ 372, 381, 382.

Where, however, the minor locality is not an essential ingredient of the crime, and the judgment can have no reference to any particular locality or place where the offense was committed, it is ordinarily sufficient to charge it as having been committed in the county and state, without any further identification than to name the owner or occupant of the land upon which the offense was committed. Accordingly, an indictment under section 1961, Rev. St. 1881, which makes any person who, without license from competent authority, removes from the land of another any tree, stone, timber, or other valuable article, guilty of a trespass, was held sufficient although it only charged that the property was removed from lands situate...