Case ID: law-times-ns_1/html/0153-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "IIandlet, I’.'J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

QUARTER SESSIONS OF LACKAWANNA CO
    COMMONWEALTH vs. F. B. WATROUS
    1. The statute of i Henry v. Chap v, is in force in this Commonwealth.
    2. In every original writ anti indictment additions shall be made to the name of the person or persons indicted, of their estate, degree or mystery, and if such additions are omitted the indictment will be' quashed.
    Motion to quash indictment.
    Paul R. Weitzel, Esq., for motion.
   Opinion by

IIandlet, I’.'J.

The indictment in this case charges the defendant with having unlawfully dissuaded, hindered and prevented a witness duly and legally subpoenaed, from attending and testifying before a certain board of arbitrators. Before plea, where the case was called lor . trial, the defendant moved to. quash because the mystery, addition,occupation nor estate of the defendant, is set, forth in said indictment. The statute of 1 Henry v. Chap v. directs “That in every original writ and indictment, additions shall be made of their estare or degree or mystery, and if the said addition be omitted that they be void,” etc. This statute is in force in this Commonwealth, Roberts Dig. XXI. Com. vs. Travers, 2 Brewster, 568. The defendant,E. B. Watrous, is simply named in the indictment, without any additions w hatever.

Motion to quash sustained.

Exemption from Process. — The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, recently decided-that a member of ( ongress is at all times liable to service of process, except' that during attendance upon Congress and in going to and returning he is privileged from arrest in a private action.