Ryan v. State

52 Ind. 167
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1875·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Pettit, J.

— Indictment for assault and battery. The ■charging part of the indictment is this:

Did then and there, at the county of Martin, in the State of Indiana, in a rude, insolent and angry manner, unlawfully touch, beat, bruise and strike one William N. Wag-goner; and did, then and there * * * * unlawfully .shoot, strike and wound him, the said William N. Waggoner, with a gun loaded with powder and leaden shots, which,” etc.

The evidence shows that the battery was committed with a stone, and not with a gun, as alleged in the indictment; and the only question in the case is, does the evidence warrant a conviction on the indictment?

There is no necessity, in an indictment for an assault and battery, to describe the instrument with which the battery was committed; but if this is done, it is sufficient to prove that it was done with a different instrument, and this will not be a variance. 2 Bishop Crim. Proced., sec. 514; 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 65.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.

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

Ryan v. State, 52 Ind. 167 (Ind. 1875).

52 Ind. 167 (Ryan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harrell v. State
114 So. 815 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
State v. Spahr
117 N.E. 648 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1917)
Hanley v. W. Va. C. & P. Ry. Co.
53 S.E. 625 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1906)
Brzezinski v. Tierney
22 A. 486 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1891)