Stewart v. State
This text of 4 Blackf. 171 (Stewart 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
AN indictment against a constable under the 48th section of the act relative to crimes and punishments, R. C. 1831, p. 190, for official negligence in not executing a state’s warrant, need not contain an averment that the justice who issued the warrant had legal authority to do so; nor an allegation, that previously to the issuing of the warrant, a complaint on oath was made to the justice charging the person to be arrested
with the commission of a crime; nor that a crime was committed in the view of the justice.
It is sufficient if the indictment, in such case, set out a warrant legal upon its face.
The state is a “ person ” within the meaning of the above-named section of the statute; and an averment, therefore, that the offence was to the injury of the state is sufficient.
There is not a fatal variance between the name Beckwith in a warrant named in an indictment, and Beckworth in that produced on the trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Blackf. 171, 1836 Ind. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-state-ind-1836.