Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-01-25
IN TIE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF .HEv ADA.

IN TIE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEvADA.
Appealed From TIE Fourth Judicial
District Court, EIko County. Me-
vada.
The State CT Nevada,
Plaintiff and Respcn sent,
against
Pau! LoveIace,
Defendant and Apnellant
Attorney General james C. Sweeney,
Attorney for State.
Wn1. Woodburn, Attorney for Appel
!snt
Defendant appeals from a judgment
rendered against him in the District
Court in and for Eiko county tor the
crime of burglary: and he asst 9ns two
reasons why, as he claims, judgment
should be reversed
First. the insufticiency Of the in
dictment on which the judgment was
based; and
Second, the absence Of corrohora-
ton Of the testimony of an accGmniice
who testified nqainst tba defendant.
Under the first head the point made
is on the proper Interpretation Of the
following clause in the ipdictNCnr.
The said Paul LCvc'ace on the i7t'a
t'av Of May. 1909, il the ~;cht tir7s OF
said cav, or thereahcuts, in tire Courty
c" F3}l0. State Of Nevada without Gu-
thoritr of the lew and before the find
ING cf this indictment. did wi'fully,
unlawfu'1v and burelariCusly break
AMI entor the building of one Alez;ah-
der Burrell.'
Counsel for defendant in his or
tner brief if al unsigned 0aDer IN the
usual form Of brief found among the
pannrs in the case as they appear filed
in this court. is by US treated as
brew. say:
"ApDellant claims that this Indict-
nent is not good at common law, be
late to end qualify the words night
time. THIS question was not raised
IL the court below. hut is here pre-
scented for the tirst time.
The question is not whether the in
dictment would be good at common
law: il is whether il is good under
the statute Of Nevada that governs
the subject, The subject is govern ed
bv the sections following concerning
Indictments.
Section 4199. Complied Laws. 1909,
provides that the Indictment shall
contain ". settlement of
the acts constituting the ofrensa in
ordinary and concise language and in
such manner as 70 enable a nerson #
common understanding to know what
is intended
J has the following: "The words used
/ in an Indictment shall be copstrue1
in the usual accentance in common
langua -. excent such words AMI
phrases as are defined nv law which
are n be construed according to their
legal meaning"
Section 42OS. COMPLIED Laws 1900.
provides:
Sixth-That the ect or omission
charged as the offense is clearly and
distinctly set forth in ordinary and
concise language without renetition.
and in such . manner "a tn enable ,
rerson Of common understanding -
| know what ia intended u
| Section 4,no js as follows.
"No indictment sh,l, he daeme,
insufficient nor shall, the trial udg.
ment or the proceeding thereon ne
! affected nv reason Of anv defect or
! imperfection in matters % :or,c
which shall, not tend tn the nreiudice
of the defendant: -
The foregoing enactments show that
! il was the intention of the legislature
of Nevada that in constituting indict.
/ ments the courts should not indulge
in \ too-exact and oyer-nice view of
! language: but that certainty to a com.
/ mon intent was All that should he
| reou;red
True in the paragr.ph Of the in.
! dictment under discussion there ia
! something of a denarture from the
| hest models of grammatical rheto-i
cal mr. linouistic exnression Rut We
think tho narasranh meets tho
+, requirement of the statute that "the