State v. McDowell

Indiana Supreme Court

State v. McDowell

6 Blackf. 49

DecidedNovember 15, 1841

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Blackf. 49 (State v. McDowell) 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. McDowell, 6 Blackf. 49 (Ind. 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

Dewey, J.

This was a prosecution against a justice of the peace for oppression under colour of his office. The Circuit Court quashed the indictment on the motion of'the defendant.

H. O’Neal, for the State. J. Pitcher, for the defendant.

The objection urged against the indictment is, that the defendant is not described by the addition of his degree, or mystery, and place of residence.

By the common law no addition was required in indictments against persons under the degree of a knight. 1 Chitt. C. L., 204. The statute of additions, 1 Hen., 5. c. 5. enacts that defendants shall be described by adding to their names their estate, degree, or mystery, and place of residence, in all cases in which “the exigent shall be awarded.” It has *been held, in the construction of this statute, that in prosecutions which can not be attended by the process of outlawry, the indictment need not give the addition of the defendant. 1 Chitt. C. L., 206; Bac. Abr. Indictment, 2. Ib. Misnomer, 2; Rex v. Brough, 1 Wils., 244; Cro. Eliz., 148. The exigent, being a step in the proceedings of outlawry, is unknown to our law.

It is, therefore, evident that the statute of additions, from its own terms, is not applicable to prosecutions in this State; and it is equally clear, that the common law does not require the defendant to be described by his addition in our indictments. The Circuit Court erred in quashing the indictment.

Per Curiam.—The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

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

Dewey, J.

This was a prosecution against a justice of the peace for oppression under colour of his office. The Circuit Court quashed the indictment on the motion of'the defendant.

H. O’Neal, for the State. J. Pitcher, for the defendant.

The objection urged against the indictment is, that the defendant is not described by the addition of his degree, or mystery, and place of residence.

By the common law no addition was required in indictments against persons under the degree of a knight. 1 Chitt. C. L., 204. The statute of additions, 1 Hen., 5. c. 5. enacts that defendants shall be described by adding to their names their estate, degree, or mystery, and place of residence, in all cases in which “the exigent shall be awarded.” It has *been held, in the construction of this statute, that in prosecutions which can not be attended by the process of outlawry, the indictment need not give the addition of the defendant. 1 Chitt. C. L., 206; Bac. Abr. Indictment, 2. Ib. Misnomer, 2; Rex v. Brough, 1 Wils., 244; Cro. Eliz., 148. The exigent, being a step in the proceedings of outlawry, is unknown to our law.

It is, therefore, evident that the statute of additions, from its own terms, is not applicable to prosecutions in this State; and it is equally clear, that the common law does not require the defendant to be described by his addition in our indictments. The Circuit Court erred in quashing the indictment.

Per Curiam.—The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Blackf. 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcdowell-ind-1841.