State v. Aydelott

Indiana Supreme Court

State v. Aydelott

7 Blackf. 157, 1844 Ind. LEXIS 74

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 6, 1844

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 7 Blackf. 157 (State v. Aydelott) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Aydelott, 7 Blackf. 157, 1844 Ind. LEXIS 74 (Ind. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

Dewey, J.

— This was a prosecution for a malicious trespass. The indictment charged that the defendant did “ maliciously and mischievously injure and cause to be injured a [158]*158certain house, the property of one William MS Mahon? situate, &c., “of the value of fifty dollars, to the damage of the said William McMahon five dollars, contrary to the form of the statute,” &c. The Court, on the motion of the defendant, quashed the indictment.

W. A. Porter, for the state. J. W. Payne, for the defendant.

We think the decision was right. The description of the offence is too vague. It is true, that in describing the crime, the indictment adopts the language of the statute creating it. But this mode of setting out an offence is not always attended with the requisite certainty. There is in general no essential difference, as to the precision required in describing the crime, between an indictment at common law, and one founded on a statute. 1 Chitt. C. L. 275. And it has accordingly been held, that an indictment for obtaining money by false pretences was bad, although the description of the offence given by the statute was pursued in the indictment. It was considered necessary for the indictment to show what the false pretences were. The King v. Mason, 2 T. R. 581.

The indictment under consideration should have shown the specific injury done to the house. This was necessary in order to apprize the defendant, with certainty, of the crime with which he was charged, and to enable him to plead the verdict in any future prosecution for the same offence.

Per Curiam.

— The judgment is affirmed.

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

Dewey, J.

— This was a prosecution for a malicious trespass. The indictment charged that the defendant did “ maliciously and mischievously injure and cause to be injured a [158]*158certain house, the property of one William MS Mahon? situate, &c., “of the value of fifty dollars, to the damage of the said William McMahon five dollars, contrary to the form of the statute,” &c. The Court, on the motion of the defendant, quashed the indictment.

W. A. Porter, for the state. J. W. Payne, for the defendant.

We think the decision was right. The description of the offence is too vague. It is true, that in describing the crime, the indictment adopts the language of the statute creating it. But this mode of setting out an offence is not always attended with the requisite certainty. There is in general no essential difference, as to the precision required in describing the crime, between an indictment at common law, and one founded on a statute. 1 Chitt. C. L. 275. And it has accordingly been held, that an indictment for obtaining money by false pretences was bad, although the description of the offence given by the statute was pursued in the indictment. It was considered necessary for the indictment to show what the false pretences were. The King v. Mason, 2 T. R. 581.

The indictment under consideration should have shown the specific injury done to the house. This was necessary in order to apprize the defendant, with certainty, of the crime with which he was charged, and to enable him to plead the verdict in any future prosecution for the same offence.

Per Curiam.

— The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Blackf. 157, 1844 Ind. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-aydelott-ind-1844.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack