The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-01

mean that the indictment must set
forth tho offense with clearness and oil
necessary certainty to apprise tho ac-
cused IT tho crime with which no stands
charged and IN United States VS.. Cook,
n Wall, III. that every Ingredient OF
which the oi1snse is composed must be
accurately aud clearly alleged" IL Is
mn elementary principle OF criminal
pleading that whore the definition Of nm
oHense. whether II be ut common law or
by statute. "ineudcs generic terms, IL
Is not sufficient that Tho indictment
shall charge the ofIcnse In tho same
generic terms rs in the definition. but II
must state the species. II must descend
to particulars. Arch, Or Pr. and
I. L.. 2Dl The object Of the indictment
Is, first, to furnish tho accused with such
description Of the charge against him
as will enable him to make his defense
and avail himself OF his conviction or
acuuittal for protection against u further
prosecution for tho SHINE cause. and
second, to inform the court Of the facts
alleged. SO that II may decide whether
they are sufficient in law 10 support u
conviction If ono should be had. For
this facts IRE to be stated. not conclu
sious Of law alone A crime Is made NJ
of acts and intent, and these must be
set forth in tho Indictment. with reason
able PARTICULARLY of time, place and
| circumstances u Is n crime to steal
goods and ehattels. but IN Indictment
would he bad that did not specify. with
some degree of certainty. tho articles
stolen. This because tho accused must
be- advised Of the essential particulars
Of the charge against him. and the
court must be able to decide whether
the property taken was such ms was the
subject of larceny. SO. too. IL is in some
States crime for two or more PERSONS
to conspire to cheat and defratd another
out Of his property but IT. Itns been hold
that IN Indictment for such an ofrense
must contain allegations setting forth
tho means proposed to be used to nc
coinplish tho purpose. This because TO
make such n purpose criminal. tho con
spiracy must be to cheat and derrnud in
q mode made criminal II Is necessary
for tho indictment to state the means
proposed. in order that the Court may
sec that they are. in fnct Illegal. Estate
VS.. Parker. ~ N. II. 80 State Va. Reach,
40 VT. tts. Aldermen VS.. The People. 4
Mich, "A State VS.. Roberts. "a Maine,
~ In Mime 1t is mn of1ense for two or
more to conspiro with the intent. unIaw-
fully and wekedly. 10 commit any
crimo punishable by imprisonment in
the state Prison Estate vs.. Eohertsl. but
mn Indictment would be good under
this statute which charged tho OBJ
Ject OF the conspiracy to have
been unlawfulIy and wicltedly to
commit each. every. oil md sin
gular the crimes punishable by
imprisonment in the State Prison" All
crimes are not SO punishable. Whether
particular crime be such n one or not
is question of law. The accused has.
therefore. the right 20 have apeoilica-
ton Of the charge against him in this
respect. in order that he may decide
whether he should present his defense
by motion to quash. demurrer or Plea
and tho court that IT, may determine
whether the facts will sustain the in
dictment. So there the crime Is mnJe
to consist in tho unlawful combination
with IN intent to prevent tile enjoy
mcnt OF my right granted or secured by
the Constitution. etc. All rights arc not
SO granted or secured whether ono Is
SO or not is u question of law to be dc
cidcd by the court. not the prosecutor.
Therefore. tho Indictment should state
tho particulars to inform tho Court
aa well MS the accused. IL must be made
to appear that Is to say, appear from
tho Indictment without going further
that the acts charged will, If proven.
support u conviction for the offense al
legged. But it is needless to pursue the
argument further. The conclusion Ia
Irresistible that those counts arc too
vague and general They lnes the cor
tninty aud precision required by the es-
tablished rules Of criminal pleading |
1t follows TINT they arc not good aud |
sufficient in law. Thoy are so defective |
that no judgment OF conviction should |
be pronounced upon them. Tho order |
OF tho Circuit Court nrrcstinp the iudg- |
mont upon tho verdict Is therefore AZ |
iirlnod. and the chse remanded with in
To discharge the defendants |
Mr.. Justice Clifford dissented from the |
opinion. but concurred in tho judgment |