Case ID: scl_13/html/0257-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Huger\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State vs. Montague.
    After -a prisoner lias plead not guilty, and the jury charged, it is too late to move to plead a misnomer.
    Where there are two or moi-e distinct counts in an indictment, charging different and distinct offences, and punishable differently, a general verdict of guilty is bad.
    IN this ease, the defendant was indicted for trading With negroes, without the permission of their owners, and for receiving stolen goods. His name was Montacue, ánd not Montague, as was written in the indictment. — - The,plea of not guilty was filed ; but after the jury were, cbargedj amotion was.made in behalf of the prisoner to plead a misnomer, which was refused.
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
    A motion was now made for a new trial.
    
      Clarke, Sol. for the motion.
    
      Williams, contra.
   Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court:

It is thought unnecessary to notice the several grounds taken in this case, on which the opinion of the court was delivered a few days since in the case of the State vs. Williams.

The grounds peculiar to this case, are,

1st. The refusal of the judge to permit the misnomer to be pleaded, and,

2ndly. The uncertainty of the verdict.

The defendant having pleaded the general issue, ■ and put himself upon his trial, it was too late (when the jury was charged) to interpose a new plea. On this ground, therefore,, the motion cannot succeed.

On the second ground, however, the motion must pretail. There are two distinct counts in the indictment, each charging the prisoner with a different and distinct offence. • For each of which offences, the law has provided a different and distinct punishment. A general verT diet of guilty, does not shew of which offence he was guilty. The judgment of the court, therefore, cannot be pronounced;

A new trial is ordered.

Justices Richardson, Johnson* Gantt, Colcock and Nott, concurred.