The Sentinel=record., 1910-01-23


 Dakota against Crawford 1t was charged thar the defendant during | the night time bored three holes wuh a two inch auger through the walls of a granary and into mass of wheat stored therein.
 The weight of the wheat forced several bushels of wheat to pass out of the aperture caused by the auger, which wheat was taken away and sold by the defendant.
 The trial judge directed the jury ito aequit upon the ground that the evi- dence failed to show an entry into 1 the granary.
 THe state appealed, and the su- preme court held that the ruling of the trial court was in error. holding "that the intention to steal within the the granary is sufficiently shown by 1 the fact that the wheat which was stored inside of the granary was Dy ithe defendants agency transferred from the inside to the outside of the granaaR4
 'It is true that the law of grayta- ton co-operated with the defendant in removing the wheat. but the de- fendant by his own act set the law in motion upon the inside of the build ing and thereby accomplished his criminal purpose
 l Tn Texas John Young escaped serv- ing term for burglary because the supreme court held that "an indict- ment alleging the .bHrglarious entry of house. belonging to two persons, with intent to steal therefrom the proper.y of the owners or either of /, them. without their consent, is insuf ficient in that 1t does not allege that it was without the consent of either of them"
 This will impress the layman as be-
 ing nice distinction and should add
 to the legal reputation of Mir Young's
 attorney.
 Here are some technicalties which gave grounds for new trials
 One was because the indictment
 charged the defendant with killing
 and murdering" instead of stating he
 did kill and murder (the word did
 being held essential to valid indict
 menu; because the indictment charg ed the defendant wish intent to "kili or iniure" instead of to "kill and in jure.p l Because the words person or htl man being" were omitted from the in dictment.
 Because the defendant was alowe,
 tc offer evidence as to his good repu tation for honesty and integrity, bu : not as to his reputation for truth an, yeracity (ehus assuming that the jur. : might not believe the testimony as t the former, but might believe it a l to the latter).
 Because. the judge was absent iron , the trial three minuees. l Because the words "on oath" wer , emitted from the indictment. q Because the officer who summone |. the jury. was not specially sworn. i. Because the evidence on which
 nci crious robber was convicted faile f 10 show whether the money stole i was in coin or bills. n Because the property stolen Gin tni D case 800 pounds of cotton) was nc
 shown to have any value. i Because the indictment whic Q charged the defendant with burning |, | creamery described the offense 2 :. arson" whereas arson is the burnin l. of dwelling.
 e Because an indictment charging tn s defendant with committing a crim I at Westminster failed to state that q was the town of Westminster, etc
 The reports of the supreme coui 2 of the United States likewise are nt d without their contributions 10 thi $. phase of American procedure. Tn ,s recent case this court reversed tn d decision of a state court because T. did not appear from the record ths # the accused had been arraigned an
 given an opportunity to enter ple e Of guilty.