Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-11-13
A DECISION RENDERED
By Judge Hugus, Yesterday, in the
Pleas in Abatement.

By Judge Hugus, Yesterday, in tht
Pleas in Abatement.
He Holds, in Effect, That Any Sor'
of Indictment is Good in a Rev
enue Case, Although it Might Be
Bad in a Case, Of Petit Larceny
The Issue Will Again Be Argued
To-Day on Motion to Quash the
Indictments The Matter, in the
Event of Another Adverse De-
cision, Viii Be Carried to the
Supreme Court by the Defend
ants.
In the Criminal Court, yesterday
morning, Judge Hugus handed down
his opinion on the pleas in abatement,
filed by sixty or seventy defendants,
indicted for selling under short
licenses" ETC., by the September grand
jury. The decision was adverse to the
defendants, the pleas being held
to be not good by the
Court, in lengthy opinion
which is published verbatim in this
issue. In effect, the Court holds that
any informality as to the drawing Of
the grand jurors, or in the form of the
indictment, would not invalidate a
revenue indictment, although it might
be fatal in any other case-larceny,
for example.
1t will be remembered that the de-
PENDANTS took issue with the State in
three several ways-1, the challenge of
the array; 2, the plea in abatement,
and, 8, by motion to quash. The
first was disposed of some time ago;
the second is settled-at least tenn
porarily-by yesterdays opinion, and
the third-the motion to uuash-will
come up for argument to-day. The
same grounds are relied upon by the
defense in each instance, and in the
event of another adverse decision to-
duy IHC lloCtCIO etI loouC VIII NC tol :
ried by the defense to the Supreme
Court of Appeals, upon constitutional
grounds.
The decision of Judge Hugus yes
terday follows
In these cases the defendants ten
dered to each indictment fifteen pleas
in abatement. The State objected to
their fling, and on it's objection being
overruled and pleas permitted to be
filed, excepted and then demurred to
each Of the pleas SO filed. The pleas
set up a great number of irregularities
in selecting and empanelling the grand
jury that indicted the defendants
The attorneys for the State, in de-
murring to the pleas, assume the posi-
ton that as these are dilatory pleas
aiming to avoid the indictments to
which they were pleaded by setting up
technical matters solely; they should
be judged by the strict technical rules
applicable to the draughting of such
pleas; and that if these pleas are open
% technical objection in their form
,r substance, the demurrer should be
iuatairod and the dnfandants required
% answer. The State does not deny
N argument that some of the matters
1t least set up, or aimed to be set up,
are sufficient if properly pleaded to
abate the indictments. The State, in
Its argument of the demurrerS, insist
ed only that the pleas were not precise
and sufficient in form to constitute
proper pleas. This position and these
demurrers then impose upon the Court
the obligation of inquiring into the
rules governing at common law the
construction of pleas in abatement,
and to decide whether or not the mat
tiers attempted to be set up in abate-
ment Of the indictments are pleaded
according to the strict requirements
of these rules.
Chitty q Chitty pleadings, 45S, 10
Am. ed, and the same, 473, 16 Am. ed i,
says: GAS pleas in abatement do
not deny and yet tend to delay
the trial of the merits of the action,
great accuracy and precision are re-
quired in forming them. They
should be certain to every intent, and
certainty to every intent cd. 234) is
that which precludes all argument, in
ference or presumption against the
party pleading. 1t is that technical
accuracy which is not liable to the
most subtle and scrupulous objection"
Wharton Grim. pleadings and prac-
tice, Sec. 427), says: "A plea in
abatement is dilatory plea and must
be pleaded with strict exactness. 1t
should precisely set forth the facts
out of which the defense arises, or
a negation Of the facts presumed from
the record"
Bishop Il Grim. Prac., Sec 745) says:
'Pleas in abatement require the