Case ID: smith-n-h_1/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HILLSBOROUGH, NOVEMBER TERM, 1806.
    State v. John Keyes.
    The omission of the words “this is a true bill,” before the signature of the foreman of the grand jury to an indictment, held immaterial after verdict.
    INdictment for assault and battery on .Samuel Hall.
    Defendant was convicted. His counsel, Mr. Bell, moved, in arrest of judgment, that there was no evidence that the indictment was found by the grand jury. The bill was signed by the solicitor, D. Everett, and by the foreman of the grand jury. But the words, “ this is a true bill,” were omitted.
    
      The counsel [for defendant] contended that this omission was fatal, that the signature of the foreman, with the addition of “foreman,” was not sufficient. The intention of the jury may have been to find it not a true bill, in which case it would have the signature as it now has. This bill in its present shape shows that the grand jury have acted upon it, but it does not appear what they have done.
    
      The solicitor contended that, according to the usage in this State, it was evident that the grand jury had found this a true bill; because the jury never indorse “ ignoramus,” or “ this is not a true bill,” as they sometimes do in England. This difference in the usage removes all pretence of uncertainty. All bills signed by the foreman are found true bills. But, if this were not so, it is too late to take the exception after plea pleaded. By pleading to this indictment, defendant admits it is duly found.
   Per Curiam.

Motion denied. 
      
       S. P. State v. Freeman, 1843, 13 N. H. 488; s. c. 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 2d ed. 250; Commonwealth v. Smyth, 1853, 11 Cush. 473.
      
        Contra, Webster’s Case, 1828, 5 Greenl. 432.
      
        Nomaque v. People, 1825, Breese, 109, is sometimes cited as similar to the decision in Webster’s Case; but it would seem that there was a statute in Illinois, requiring the indorsement “a true bill.” See 2d edition of Breese’s Rep., by Beecher, 145, n. 1.
      Other cases bearing on this topic are cited in a note to State v. Freeman, in 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 2d ed. 252, 253. See also 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., ed. 1866, §§ 136-141; State v. Burgess, 1857, 24 Mo. 381; People v. Lawrence, 1863, 21 Cal. 368; Townsend v. State, 1828, 2 Blackf. (Ind ) 151, 153.