Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-09-28
Abstract of the decisions of the Supreme
 Court of the State of Arkansas

court or the State of Arkansas
 Prepared erpresslytorM Me True Deuocrot z
 F. ". HoADLEY, ESQ.
 The State
 l st.nfard Es. Appeal from cars C.. c,
 This was an indictment against .Joss, Stanford tor wearing pistol. concealed ., weapon, etc. The name of tho ;nfor,,,a, was not mentioned in nor inaorsad unor the indictment. The jury found the defep. dant guilty, and assessed his punishment at me of twenty-five dollars and impri sonment Tn the county jail forthe term of one month; whereupon the defendant nov ea yhe court to arrest the judgment for the lo1io"lh8 causes, to-wit: 1st. No iudg. ment can be rendered on the verdict and indictment. 2d. The indictment to have been good, should have stated who was the lnformer. 3rd. Judgment can only go for Ine me Tn favor of the State and informer. me court sustained the motion, and the State appealed.
 Ihe. Court heId:.
 Where an indictment is framed under those statutes, creating and defining offences against the PERSON or PROPERTY of the : party injured, It Is indispensably necessary. Ill framing the indictment, to allege the name ot such party; otherwise the offence would not be described; the penalty beinc damages for the injury done. The statnte expressly directs that, "the court shall l jured'' w p''i y III
 "a. Where the offence committed. is one Igalnst society at large, it Is not necessary Snat the name of the informer should be alieged Ill the indictment, in order to de- ScflOe the offence, nor that judgment should be rendered in favor of the informer. in order to comply with the express directions of the statute
 Sd. A fine recovered by indictment in the name of the State, is very properly en- tered Tn the name of the State.
 4th. A failure to enter an order on the record following the judgment, directing one halt of the fine to be paid to the in former, Ii there should be one, and if none then to be paid into the county treasury, IS matter of no consequence to defen- dant' it not being to his prejudice.
 Judgment reversed and the case remand ed with instructions to the court to rein state the original judgment, and cause it to be executed, etc.
 Gordon N. Peay, Rec'r etc.,) Duncan and others. -hohroe. This was bill to foreclose a mortgage. the couse was heard April, 1856, upon bill, plea, answers, replications and exhibits, wand the bill dismissed for want of equity, and Peay receiver, etc., appealed.
 IHe Court held:
 Ist Ii complainant conceives plea to be defective Tn form or substance, he may take the Judgment of the court upon it's sufflclency by setting it down for argument, which Ill practice operates as demurrer but Ii the complainant replies to the plea he puts in issue the truth of it's allegations; and if, upon the hearing, the defendant proves the truth of the matter pleaded, the suit, so far as the plea extends, is barred | even though the plea is not good in form or substance.
 I'd A judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, IS conclusive between the same par ties, or their privies, upon the same mat ter, when brought into question in the same | court, or In another court of concurrent iu- | rIsdlction. The rule is founded upon con. | slderationS as well of abstract justice as of public policy, which forbids the litigation ot any matter which has been once fairly determined by proper and competent au- thorlty between the same parties, or those In the relation ot privies to them The decree is affirmed
 Buzzard, The $: State. Appeal from 1e''y'''s' s'e- At Nov. term, 1857, of the Lafavette I clrcult court, Buzzard was indicted for bet tng atcards He interposel two pleas, the State demurred to the pleas, the court sus- talned the demurrer, and the defendant saying nothing further in defence of the | indictment, the court adiudged C that he be fined ten dollars with costs" and rem dered final judgment accordingly. < The oeeendant appealed. The court hetd:
 l. Although defendant may be called before grand Jury, and required to testify as to the part taken by another person in the offence referred to, in the indictment against him, it does not exempt him from being indicted for his participation in the same crime. But the testimony so given by him could not legally be used against him either in finding the indictment or upon his trial for the offence.
 2. Upon sustaining a demurrer to pleas Ain abatement, the judgment should be, that the defendant answer over.
 The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.