Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-08-08
supreme Court of Indiana, May Term, 1850.

~ r Il G : @ X II L n So
FRIDAY. Nav 81 IS50

on application ly the defendant change of venue was
granted to the Kosciusko Circuit Court. The
there tried and the defendant convicted He prosecutes
a writ of error 70 this Court.
II was commended for the defendant that the Kosci
usko Circuit Court had jurisdiction the cause De-
cause the indictment did appear 10 have been filed
in the Allen Circuit Court The transcript made ly the
Clerk OF the Allen Circuit Court that on GER
tain day of certain Of said court. grand ury
presented these words and figures following to-wit~
then follows copy oil the indictment IL further shows
that process issued against the defendant that he an
peared and it being demanded of him how ne would ac
quit himself oil the charges, &c, for plea thereto said
that he guilty he stood charged in the ndct
aforesaid " that he entered into recosnzance for
his appearance at subsequent which the cause
was continued; that, at that term, be applied for AMI
obtained change OF venue to the Kosciusko Circuit
Court, TO which Court the Clerk of the Allen Circuit
Court ordered transmit the papers in the cause
with transcript &c and the record made y the Clerk
OF the Allen Circuit Court that the proceedings
in that court including the original Indictment which is
specially mentioned filed in the Kosciusko Circuit
Court and there objection that all the papers be-
longing to the cause were not filed there.
Held, That these statements sufficiently showed that
the indictment had been delivered to- and received in
his official capacity by the Clerk of the Allen Circuit
Court; and that such delivery and reception of the
indictment constituted filing of it,
The caption to the Indictment in this show ed that
the indictment found at the October Term 1916 by
certain men, duly empanneed sworn, and charged as
grand jurors in and for the county of Allen the said
term.
He'd, That sufficiently appeared from the caption
at which the grand jury sworn
The indictment in this charged the offence 10 have
been committed certain day of a certain month in
the year eighteen hundred and forty-six."
Held, That the indictment Objectionable for
emitting TO show that the offence committed in the
year OF our Lord-that fact being implied from the
words used
Several may properly be inserted in an ndct
ment, charging the transaction though amounting
to felony in different modes order TO meet the proofs
in the case and if it do appear the face Of tho
Indictment nSaqfion
charged the Indictment should not be quashed for that
cause
If Indictment charge hut one transaction in differ
ent NODES the prosecuting attorney has right give
the evidence relating to that transaction and apply to
whichever of the Indictment would sustain and
cannot be compelled before proceeding to the trial
elect upon which count he will proceeds but if when the
prosecuting attorney has adduced his evidence it tends
to prove distinct larcenes offences, which might be
embraced by the charges in the Indictment the prosecu
ting attorney might then be compelled to elect upon
which OF the larcenes he would rely the trial and
confne his evidence to that. See Russ Or. 696.
count in indictment for larceny of certain
county orders charged that the defendant (namng HIND
late, &c, on, &c, at &c, five county orders drawn by
the auditor of The county of Allen in the State Of nd-
ana, on the treasurer OF said Allen county Of these
county orders being of the denomination eghtyscyen
dollars and twenty-seven cents, and of the value of
Twenty-Five dollars; other Of said county orders be-
lag OF the denomination &C., describing each remain
ing order after the Of the rst) the personal
goods Of SC, " then there being found, then and
there ielonousy did take and carry away, contrary"
Held That the description of tie property alleged to
have been stoen sufficiently particular Vide The
Commonwealth V. Richards, Mass. 337.
count in Indictment for larceny charging that the
defendant eloniousy took and carried away" the pro-
perry described in the indictment, is not Objectionable
for emitting the word stole" as the ieonons taking
and carrying away constitutes larceny.
In this the instructed the jury that if they
believed from the evidence that the defendant pos
session of the orders of the TOwny. part of them
as charged in the Indictment within period of
months after the time they alleged to have been so
en and that they stolen about the time alleged,
and the defendant has failed TO show how he came by
Them he having it in his power explain his possession,
if 1t honest one such possession is circumstance
from which the jury authorized to raise preSnmp-
rion in connection with the other circumstances in the
case, to weigh against the defendant"
Held, That the instruction was unObIectionable.
On the trial of defendant for larceny the State
not in answer to evidence tending to establish the gene
raj good character of the defendant adduce evidence
prove particular acts of misconduct done by him. l
Chit. Cr l.. 574; Russ. Or. ia; Greenl. Ev.-
1875; Redman The State Blackf. sc. Reversed.
!, CrdulOri ct al V. Long ct al. Error to the Clarke
c. C.
Per CuR1AM-The writ of scire facias in this case
adludged bad upon demurrer by the Circuit Court is
deemed unohiectionable Reversed, with directions
the Circuit Court to ovrrue the demurrer and give the
r defendants time to plead.
Roe d. Weirick v Ross Error to the Cass c c.
BAcKFoRD, J.-Ejectment, plea, the general issue.
The plaintiff relied a conveyance OF the premises in
controversy his lessor from Joseph Douglass, dated
to the premises under purchase at sherlffs sale.
To sustain this defence the defendant proved judg
ment the Cass Circuit Court rendered the 10Th OF
November, lS40 in favor of G. g. Young against John
T. Douglass, entry by Weirick, the lessor reple
win bail said Judgment, which entry made on the
18th of January, 1871. and revival OF the Judgment at
the February Term, 1845 in favor of Andrew Young,
administrator of g. G. Young, deceased with drec
ton that execution issue to sell the property levied
satisfy said Judgment. The defendant also proved
the issuing of uendoni erponas in the the 18th
of March, 1S45 which execution commanded the sheriff
of Cass county sell the lands sought be recovered
in the present suit and which execution Is valid on ITS
face The defendant also proved that he purchased said
lands under said Uendon erponGs the l4th of March,
1896 (the and profits for having first been
offered for sale without eect) He proved also the She
riffs deed to him for the lands so purchased.
He'd, That this evidence of the defendant was sufil
Gent gTima fdcie to authorize verdict in his favor.
! Armstrong V. jackson d. Elliott, Blacf. 30.
Where the grounds of objection of evidence do not
appear to have been pointed out to the Circuit Court
they be noticed by the Supreme Court. Russell
ct al V. Branham Blackf 277.
Three executions, of the date, in favor OF dler-
persons, levied certain goods, and the last
also land of the execution defendant, by X,
who then sheriff. part of the goods levied on
sold the first execution, and 1t did not appear
what had become of the residue. The land which was
levied upon by the last named execution afterwards
sold upon cendon erpOnas issued upon the same Judg-
ment r. When the rendtion issued and for
a long time previously V. the sheriff, and Il
T was he who sold the land to r.
Held, That r. had a right under the circumstances,
presume that such proceedings had taken place sub
sequenty the levy the goods as justified the iss-
I inc of a renditioR erpOnas.
Lands sold by the sheriff. upon execution, proved
to be worth the time of the sale from 200 to 800
dollars The sum bid and paid for them by the pur-
q chaser Ill dollars and p cents.
Held That this nadequacy OF price, not, oil itself,
e sufficient avoid the sale. affirmed.