Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-12-05
REASONS ASSIGNED
By the Court of Appeals for Quash-
ing the Indictment
In THE FORD'S THEAHER CASE.
Facts Should Have Been Set Out,
Not Left to Inference.
ESTION OF JOINT R

Although there were four grounds upon
which Messrs. Ainsworth, Dant, Covert and
Sasse based their demurrer to the indict
ment against them for nansiaughter in
connection with the Ford's 'rheater disaster
Of June last, the Court of Appeals in it's
opinion in the case, as mentioned in yester-
days Star, reversing the decision of Judge
McComas and directing that the indictment
be quashed, discussed but two of the four
objections to the Indictment urged by the
defendants in their demurrer, explaining
that it was unnecessary to examine the
other grounds of objection taken" The
four grounds of objection were:
l. That the indictment shows upon its
face a misjoinder of the defendants.
q That there is failure to charge any
definite individual duty upon the defendants
and that there is no notice given them of
the particular act Of negligence for which
they are sought to be held liable.
3. That by the Indictment the defendants
are charged with an allegal measure of care
and diligence, and
4. That the Indictment charges upon the
defendants a criminal responsibility for al
legged omission of joint or common duty,
but does not charge that there was an ex-
elusive duty upon any one of the defend
ants. &c, in respect to any portion of the
work.
After stating these objections, the court
says:
The Courts Reasoning.
ut is certainly fundamental principle in
the common law that every party accused
of crime is entitled to have every essential
fact that enters into the definition of the
offense set forth in an indictment with
such full and entire accuracy that the
! off ind tb.a
in pronouncing judgment thereon, whether
upon demurrer or after conviction. This is
| especially necessary where the act or Cmis-
| sion charged as producing the injury is not
| In itself necessarily unlawful, hut only be-
| comes so by It's peculiar circumstances and
| relations, to the result mat follows, in
natural sequence of events. In such case
| every matter of fact essential To show the
| ilegality of the act or neglect must be fully
| set forth, and the omission of any fact or
| circumstance necessary 20 constitute The
offenSe will be ia tai. The Indictment must
be certain to every intent AMI wi; hOu; any
! intendment to the con lraTy; and the crime
must be charged with such certainty and
precision that it may be understood by
every one, SO that the party may know low
to defend against such charge Hence facts,
and not mere conclusions from facts or
conclusions of law, must be stated. or. as
declared by the Supreme Court of the United
States in g. recent case of United STATES VS..
| Hess, 124 l.. s, 1856: The general, and with
few exceptions the universal. rule on this
subject is that all material facts m cir
cumstances embraced in the definition CT
! the offense must be stated, the i16ict-
ment will be defective. No essential ele-
ment of the crime can be omitted withou.
destroying the whole plea i'ny. The ON g.
sion cannot be supplied by intendment or
| implication, and the charge must be rade
directly and not inferentially, or by way
of recital And again, in the same case.
quoted from the previous case of l.. ). VS..
| Cruikshank OF L. s., 542 the court said
| The object OF the indictment is first to
! furnish the accused with such a description
of the charge against him AS Will cradle
him to make his defense, and avail himself
| of his conviction or acquittal for protec-
ton against further prosecution for the
same cause: and second, to inform the court
of the facts alleged, so that it may decide
whether they are sufficient in law to sup
port a conviction, If one should be had. For
! this facts ought to be stated and rot con-
illusions of law alone. A crime is made Up
of acts and intent: and these must he set
forth in the indictment with reasonable
particularly OF time, place am circum-
| stances.
The Defendants Could he Joined.
As to the alleged misjoinder of the de-
PENDANTS, the court was of the opinion that
there was nothing in the nature of the
offense charged that would make 1t i'm
proper to Join the defendants in the in
d;ctment Treating the indictment as being
for negligence in the omission OF duties
only, whereby death was produced it is not
difficulty to conceive a state of case that
| would support such an Indictment II
several parties enter into joint unde-tak-
ing imposing upon each a personal duty i'll
| respect to the performance of tie under
taking, and upon all alike, and ~ the ne
gIect or omission of such duty the casualty
occurs resulting in the death of Il thi.d
rarity, we can perceive no reason why an
Indictment would not lie against all. But
whether. in the Indictment before us, suiii-
Cient facts are charSet TO connect all The
! defendants With the disGster That resulted
in the death Of Lotus is another and d
different question.
| After q discussion of a number OF authori-
ties bearing upon the question, the court
asked: How were the defendants joined 81
united in obligation to adopt the necessary
! means to avoid the disaster that occur-el!
The answer to this question ought to be
plainly and explicitly furnished by facts SET
forth in the Indictment.
Not to lie Left TO Inference.
TT must not be left to inference, or be
averred as mere conclusion from primary
facts or as a conclusion upon such facts
But the facts to show the relation OF tbs
defendants 10 the work, and what part!ci-
patton each OF them had or should have en-
ercised, should all have been fully set forth
IL the indictment. 1t is tue, it is alleged
that the four defendants undertook and as
stunned The peri ordnance OF all and every
part of the work, ana were concerned IL
the performance of the sans. an! tnat they
had entire care, charge, control, inanaSe
nlent ana supervision vi the Work. BG
these are simply general conclusions state
ffiyrn precedent l2Cts lhe conclusions drawn
from such facts by the p!eader InC
facts should De stated upon the facI
OF the Indictment that the court could
BY leIai construction, determine Whethe
there was joint dUtl created and imposed
upon all the defendants alike; and whethei
the cglpabie neSHSpn~e, either OF Co.AInIs
sion or omission, was of q nature to involve
all the defendants in its criminal conse
4releeS, IS y joint commission Of crime
IL is very clear the obligation 10 perfor:.
the duty alleged must be shown, by ap
probate ayerIuentS OF fact 20 have rested
On all the defendants alike. such aver
nerts Of fact are wanting in This indict
ment. And this defect in the Indictment i
available to the Defendants, either by &c
Inurrer, or motion in arrest OF Judgement
b The court next discusses The second OBJ
lection of the defendants demurrer. ObssrV
in- that "this question is nearly allied e
and would seem to be involved, to a largt
extent, in the determin1 ton Of the proceed
ing quest ton.
The charge is that all four of the defend
ANTS assumed and undertook the work Q
change and alteration in the foundation an,
supporting walls or piers of the building, IL
order to INTRODUCE an electric light plant