Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-02-06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA.

STATE OF NEVADA.
Appealed From tire Fourth Judicial I
District Court, EIko County, Me-
vada.
The State Of Nevada.
Plaintiff ard Respondent,
against
Paul Lovelace,
Defendant ard Appellant.
Attorney General James G. Sweeney, |
Attorney fer State.
VIM. Woodburn, Attorney for Appel
liant
Defendant appeals from a judgment /
rendered against him in the District I.
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
dicJment on which the judgment was
based; and
Second. the absence Of corrob0ra-
ton of the testimony Of an accOmplice
who tnettfnd ar9i~s+ the defendant
Under the first head the point made
is Oh the proper interpretation of the
following clause in the Indictment:
The said Panl Love'ace on the 14tn
day Of May. 1904, in the night time Of
sale day, CT thereabcuts, in the County
Of EllLO State OF Nevada without al
thortv Of the law and before the find
ing Of this Indictment did wiifulIy,
unlawfully and bUrglariously break
aud enter the building of one AleXal-
der DurrclI.'
Counsel for defendant in his or
their brief. # m unsigned paner in the
usual form of a brief found among the
papers in the case as they appear filed
in this court, is by us treated as
brew say:
'Anne!lant claims that this Indict-
n7ent is not good al common law. be-
cause the words or tt1ereabouts', re-
late TO and qualify the words 'rni,t
tirne'.", 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
! dictmert would be good at common
law; i 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.
contain "...... q statement OF
the acts constituting the cffense. in
ordinary and concise language and N
such manner as TO enable person II
common understanding to know what
is Intended
Section 1906. Compiled Laws, 1900
has the following: The words used
in an Indictment shall be construed
in, ho nv,
language. excent such words AMI
! phrases as are defined by law, which
/, are to be construed according to their
legal meaning
Section 42OS, Compiled Laws 1900,
Sixth-That the act or omission
, charged as the offense is clearly and
distinctly set forth il ordinary and
/ concise language without repetition.
and in such a manner as to enable a
person of common understanding 70
know what is Intended. .......'
Section 1903 is as fellows:
NO indictment shall be deemed
insufficient, nor shall the trial. judg-
ment. or the proceeding thereon, be
affected. by reason Of any defect or
imnerfection in matters @ f0r,~
which shall not tend to the prejudice
of the defendant; D."
The foregoing enactments show that
it was the intention of the legislature
Of Nevada that in constituting indict-
ments the courts should not indulge
in a tcO-eyact and over-nice view Of
language: but that certainty to a com.
mon intent was all that should be
REQUIRED.
i,, nh Of tho in.
dictment under discussion, there is
something Of 2 departure from the
best models Of grammatical, lh2tOri
cal or linguistic expression. But we
think the para graph ! meets the
: requirement Of; the statute that ''th5
acts constituting the effense should BE
charged IN ordinary and concise Ian
euage, and in such manner rs to ena
BILE person of common understand
ing 10 know what is intended Tt
hold the Indictment not fatally bad IS
. We think. to keep within the statI
tory command, as expressed above
in section 1906. or at least not to de
part too far frcm such command. %
wit. to construe in the usual accep
lance in common language
We think the defect of the indict
IEttEt tiHl Gtdlbt'i W HrN Sut.li 90 III III
language, of Section 1920. above quo
8 ed was a defect or imprefection il
natter Of form, which did rot tens
to the rejudice CT the defendant"
- The language Of the indictner
; could doubtless be made more acc,
y rate: brt we think il is not fatal
:, defective In brief Of Counsel for dt
PENDANT the following correction is o
Z fered: '. -I.- ..'
o IF the words sor thereahouts' he
been inserted after the words 'on tn
18th day Of May. 1904, the indie
ment could not he the subject OF crit
cism or assault
Perhaps the following phraseoloe
might be considered an improveme
Oh the Dbras oolCgv Of the indictmen
; The said Paul Lovelace did in Il
:. niuht time of the 18th day Of Ma