Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-02-18

in any county known to the laws of |
this State. The action of the Court |
in overrulfng these objections is al !
legged as error, and on this appeal it !
is further contended that the indict- |
ment is not shown to have been found
by the grand jury Of any county Gre
ated by cur statutes. If not too late
under State VS.. Rodergas, Z New. %
and State VS.. Harris, IL New. 419 to
raise this point after demurrer and
trial, we do not consider it well taken
for reasons hereafter stated in regard
to the venue and because, as held in
a number of decisions, proper cap
ton, title or preamble may aid a de-
fective description of the grand jury
in the charging part Of the indictment.
Commonwealth VS.. Edwards 4
Cray /.
Jefries vs.. Comcn wealth IL AL
len 145.
Commonwealth vs. Fisher Z Gray
492.
Sargent VS.. State 30 S. w. Rep.
1854 (Texj.
Feit We. Sac 50 Ark. Isl.
! c-c-.1 r.. II regular organiza-
len and attendance upon a court is
'oooSsari'v one within and for the
county where the court is in session
nd where tie count ard court have
cen properly described in the title,
Indictments have been sustained with
- the name Of TIE county being stat
Il IN describing the grand iurv in ttc
body Of the instrument. State vs. XII
or. Ind. G21 and State VS. Brady, IA
t. 355. Morgan vs.. State, 10 Ala. $50.
leonardo vs.. Territory. l N NJ 1893
stevens vs. St7te 76 Ca 81.
In the last case an Indictment head
ID 'Georgia, Liberty County was held
to show that the grand jurors were
7r'"wr ""' eT7orn in that county
| In Missouri, where the caption was
| emitted it was held sUtii cient, if it aD-
| HHared frC m the record that the in
! dictment was properly preferred by
= lawful grand jury TO court having
! jurisdiction over the matter.
| State VS.. B'ake,ey. So Mo. $50.
State VS.. Freeman. q. Mo
! State VS.. Daniels. Sc Mo. 1872.
! The contention here is that the act
of November %, 1861, states that
There shall bea county. to be known
IS Jvcn Countv." and that it is fatal
to describe it in the indictment as the
County Of Lyon" when it is net so de-
signated in the statute. In the title.
, commencement and Enforcement,
Lyon County is named and the in
dictIn is shown to have been pre-
sented by grand jury in the district
court CT that county The defendant
and any person Of ordinary under
standing ought to know what is in
tended by either Of these designations
ard that the purpose Of the allegation
was to place the venue and grand jury
in that county and no other. Lawyers
in drawing deeds, aff1davits or any
paper in civil or criminal case would
be likely to name the county in Ell
, +ner OF these ways. Sec. 5, Article VI
II our State Constitution, which TEN
porarily divided the State into districts
provided that the County Of Lyon
should constitute the third. and the
Act Of the Legislature. Stat. 1861 y
291. Sec. Il, fixing the county seat a,
: Dayton. named it in the same manner
and if these objections are well taken
by analogy there is legally no county
seat. A verdict entitled in the proper
I court and case. as this indictment is
: would be sufficient if it stated tina
: 1--WE. the jury, find the defendan
guilty" and it would be presumed, O.
!. in case of attack could be shown b,
!. the minutes and records of the cour
!. that they had been properly drawn, Sc
lected and sworn in the action speci
fed in the title
The objection is technical at hes
/ and the substantial rights of the de
: PENDANT are not effected In descrit
ing the place or Jurisdiction no necess
u ity appears for the same accuracy tina
: some decisions require in naming
private corporation as a party plain
!. tiff or defendant. In Woodsides VS.
The State, 2 How. 656. it was urge
that it was not shown where the il
dictment was found. nor where tn
jury was empannelled. The cour
d held that these particulars were sc
If out with sufficient certainty and SUI:
v taned the indictment, because it r.
a. cited: THE State of Mississippi, Wi
d kinson County, So. The Circuit Coul
It of Wilkinson County. The Grand j,
rors of the State Of Mississippi, en-
k. panelled and sworn. in and for tn
County of Wilkinson, and State {
le Mississippi" If the county were in
n, properly described or omitted the a
It, legation that the defendant killed tt
Is deceased at the town of Dayton in tt
State of Nevada would fix the venu
,r Courts take judicial knowledge of tt
A division of the State into countie
~ and of the location of important tow
&c therein designated by statute. as tn
n is for the county seat:
" State VS.. LATER, SO Iowa 422.
Id Long VS.. State Tex App. 1922
i'd Luis vs State "a S. w. 900.
re Overton Us. State 60 Ala. 70.
t: People VS. Ething 80 Cal. 577-34
en- 237.
ut State vs. Powers Is Conn. 49,
ce Huston VS.. People SO Ill. App 81
a State VS.. Reader 60 Iowa SGT.
he N. w.
m People vs. Telford Sc Mich. s.
of % N. w.. 213.
nd State VS.. Pennington 1924 Mo-, 81
nd ~ 8. W., 1106.
of People VS.. Curley, SO Mich, 23S,
N. w., 60.
Martin VS.. Martin, 81 Me-, 366.
on Commonwealth VS.. Desmond