Francisco v. State

1 Ind. 179
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1848·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

THIS was an indictment against the appellant for carrying on and transacting the business and occupation [180]*180of vending wooden, brass, and composition clocks without license. After a motion to quash the indictment had been overruled, there was a trial under the pica of not guilty, and the appellant was convicted. A motion in arrest of judgment was also overruled.

Held, that the indictment, being founded on two sta-. tutes,is defective because it does not conclude, “contrary to the form of the statutes?'' The State v. Moses, 7 Blackf. 244.—The State v. Hunter, 8 id. 212. The indictment should, therefore, have been quashed; or the motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained.

The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Francisco v. State, 1 Ind. 179 (Ind. 1848).

1 Ind. 179 (Francisco v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McKown v. Furgason
47 Iowa 636 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1878)
United States v. Trout
28 F. Cas. 223 (D. Indiana, 1867)