Francisco v. State
This text of 1 Ind. 179 (Francisco v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Ind. 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francisco-v-state-ind-1848.