The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-01-16

The case Of the Commonwealth against
| George A. Cunningham, on an indictment
| for misdemeanor, was called in the Hust-
ings Court yesterday morning.
| The accused, by his counsel, Messrs. G..
d. Wise and b. II. Nash, demurrcd to the
| indictment and moved TO qtlash the same.
| In support OF this IL was contended by
Captain Wise that the indictment Is not
| sufficiently certain so as 10 enable the ac-
| cused to make his defence. Following the
exact words OF the statute to prevent ex-
| tortion, the charge Is that the accused
"did threaten injury to the character, per-
son, and property OF William Voss and 1sa-
| bella Voss, and TO accuse them OF an Of
fence, and did thereby attempt TO extort
money"
While the general rule is that, in draw
[ ing an indictment upon statute, II Is suf-
| ticient TO employ the exact words thereof,
| this must not be understood as dispensing
with the common-law rules. An indct-
ment upon statute must conform to those
rules the same as one drawn on the COM
mon law. The ..rule often announced i'm
very broad terms, that an indictment
upon q statute is sufficient II 1t fol-
| lows the statutory words creating and
defining the offence. does not dispense with
the necessity OF describing persons, places,
and things in the manner required in in
dictments on the common iaw." Bishop
on statutory crimes and numerous other
authorities and illustrations were cited.
A case was cited from Mississippi, in which
it was held that an act OF the Legislature
OF that State declaring 1t sufficient to fol-
| low the words OF the statute, and TO be un-
necessary TO give the particulars Of the
offence, is in conflict with that provision OF
the Constitution OF Mississippi, which is
| that ''In all criminal prosecutions the ac-
cused shall have the right to demand the
nature md cause Of the accusation against
him." We have a similar provision in
our Constitution, and there il in this State
no such statute. This constitutional
guarantee has thus been held to be in az
| firmance OF the common law rules on
this subject "a to the substantial allega-
tiOns. The indictment simply charges that
| the prisoner threatened 10 accuse William
| VOSs and Isabella Voss OF an offence, with
out specifying what offence. Ii the Court
| should overrule the demurrer and the mo-
ton to Quash. the Comm0nwcalth's Attor-
ney would be bound in the course OF the
trial to prove that the prisoner threatened
to accuse the parties named Of q specific
offence: otherwise no Judgment could be
rendered. Whv, then, should ii not be
stated in the indictment? II is proper to
say in this connection that the Common
wealths Attorney has not made the indlct-
ment more specific because the evidence
! does not enable him to make 1t so. The
fact is that no offence has been committed,
and therefore an indictment, sufficient in
law. cannot be drawn. Again'the indict-
ment is such a. that in any subsequent pros
ecution the accused could not avail himself
OF the plea OF autrefois acqnit or autrefois
convict. authorities were cited in this
cOnnec;iOn.) Finally it was contended that
under the statute the attempt to extort
money is not an offence.
The CommOnwealth's Attorney. Mr..
Witt, stated that the evidence does not en-
able him to vary the Indictment, and that
the only question for the Court to decide
was whether the indictment rs framed
would lie under the statute.
Judge Atkins sustained The demurrer
and motion to qulsb. While rot concur
ring with Captain Wise on allthe positions
he hsd taken. he was. be stated, satisfied
; after 4 careful examination that no offence
is charged in the Indictment: t,lt an at
t tempt to eXtort money by threats of accus
ing another OF a crime is not an indictabl'
offence under the statutes OF Virginia
ThPreupOn the accused was discharged
and the case ended.