Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-02-03
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA.
Appealed From the Fourth Judicial
District Court, EIko County, Ne-
vada.
The State Of Nevada,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
against
Paul Loveace,
Defendant and Appellant
Attorney General James G. Sweeney,
Attorney for State.
VIM. WOODBURY., Attorney for Appel
liant.
Defendant appeals from judgment
rendered against him in the District
Court in and for Elko county tor the
crime of burglary: and he assigns two
reasons why. as he claims, judgment
should be reversed.
First, the insufficiency of the in
dictment on which the judgment was
based; and
Second, the absence Of corrobora-
ton of the testimony of an accOmnlice
who testified against the defendant.
Under the first head the point made
following clause in the Indictment:
The said P9Ul LOvo'ace on the f1tn
day of May. 1904, in the night time Of
said day, or whereabouts. in the County
OF EikO. State Of Nevada. without all
thOrity of the law and before the find
ing Of this Indictment. did wilfullv.
unlawfuly and burslariously break
and enter the building of one Alexan-
der Burrell.'
Counsel for defendant IN his or
their brief, if an unsigned paper in the
usual form of brief found among the
papers in the case as they appear filed
in this court, is by US treated as a
brew. say:
"Appellant claims that this Indict-
mant is not good at common law. be-
cause the words or thereabouts', re-
late to and qualify the words might
time. This question was not raised
in the court below, but is here pre-
scented for the first time.
The question is not whether the in
dictment would be good at common
law: it is whether it is good under
the statute of Nevada that governs
the subject The subject is governed
by the sections following concerning
Indictments:
Section 4199, Compiled Laws, 1909.
! provides that the Indictment shall
I contain a statement OF
/ the acts cOnst uting the offense. i'll
/ ordinary and concise language, and in
! such manner as to enable a person If
common understanding to know what
is intended"
Section 4206. Compiled Laws, 1900,
has the following: "The words used
in an Indictment shall be construed
in the usual acceptance in common
| language. except such words and
phrases as are defined by law, which
are to be construed according to their
, legal meaning"
Section 42OS, Compiled Laws, 1900
provides: C..
Sixth-That the act or omission
charged as the offense is clearly and
distinctly set forth in ordinary and
concise language, without repetition
and in such a manner as to enable d
person of common understanding Il
know what is intended. .........'
Section 42o9 is as follows.
"a mo indictment. shall be deemed
insufficient, nor shall the trial judg
ment, or the proceeding thereon. be
affected. by reason of any defect OF
imperfection in matters of form
which shall, not tend to the prejudice
of the defendant; ...........'
The foregoing enactments show thai
IT was the intention of the Legislature
of Nevada that in constituting indict
ments the courts should not indulge
in a too-exact and over-nice view d
To- hut hot oorfoi INT ia a
mon intent was all that should b
required. .W
True. in the paragraph OF the in
dictment under discussion. there is
something Of a denarture from thu
best models of grammatical. rhetori
cal or linguistic expression. But w
think the paragraph meets the
requirement of the statute that '..th'
acts constituting the offense should b.
charged in ordinary and concise Ian
guage, and in such manner as to ena
BILE a person of common understand
ing to know what ia intended, T.
hold the indictment. not, fatally bad is
We think. to keep within the statu
tory command. as expressed above
in section 1906, or at least not to dc
part too far from such command. te
[ wit. to cOnstrue lin the usual accef
lance in common language
We think the defect of the indic'
ment complained Of was such as in tn
language of Section 1909. above quo
, ed was defect or imprefection i
matter Of form, which did not ten
to the prejudice Of the defendant"
!. The language of the indictmer
could doubtless be made more acc:
, rate; but we think it is not fatal
, defective. In brief of Counsel for d.
PENDANT the following correction is Q
Z fered:
0 ''If the words 'or Whereabouts he
been inserted after the words 'on tt
| 18th dav of May. 1904. the indie
ment could not be the subject of crit
cism or assault"
Perhaps the following phraseoloe
might be considered an improveme
~, tho oo1ouv Of ct mon