The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-03-10
The opinion follows: OF DECISION
 r,nr nann1zrrr ssnr,ss r1n1narrrzK9 ErK2.


 ON NfETLEN's DEMuHRERS
 Defendant in the above entitled cause has filed two separate demurr- CTS, one being a general demurrer claiming that the information, and the matters therein contained, are insuf- f7cient in law; tbe Q her a special de- hurrer setting forth nln6Eeen specific reasons for holding the information is insufficient.
 Counsel for the state, in his brief admits that s.manslaughter may be either voluntary or invo1untary.'s P This is of course purely elementary, but is referred to because it appears that the distinction between the two classes of mans1aug ghter was entirely overlooked in drafting the information demurred to.
 From the brief as we'll as from the oral argument of the states attorney it is evident that the State claims, and intends to prove in this action, in- voluntary mansiaughter on the part of the accused. That is, that, while the accused was the president of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad company, and as such was charged with certain lawful duties, he so negligently performed or omitted to perform those duties as to cause the death of a certain person as named in the information.
 The information in fact alleges that the accused, as president of said rail- iousIy did make an assault, and did then and there, wi1fu1ly and felonious- Iy choke, suffocate and burn her, the said Jane Doe, by means of a certain fire that then and there was burning in said car in which she, the said Jane Doe then was and near and about her, the said Jane Doe, and by the means of the smoke thereof, and by means of the said fire and flames thereof, wilfulIy and feloniouS did burn and wound her, the said Jane Doe, there by giving unto her, the said Jane Doe, by means of the said fire and Of the smoke thereof, a certain mortal chok- ing and suffocation, and by means of the said fire and the flames thereof, divers mortal burns, sores and wounds in and upon the head, body and limbs of her, the said Jane Doe. 9, more particular description of which is to said attorney unknown, of which said mortal choking and suffocation and of said, mortal burns, sores ana wounds she, the said Jane Does then and there instantly died.
 If I understand this language cor rectIy it charges a voluntary man slaughter. There is nothing in the ln- formation charging the accHsed with the neglect or omission of any nm posed duties in consequence of which the said Jane Doe lost her life, but, instead it charges direct acts Of vio- lence producing that result, although it was conceded in the argument that the accused was not within many miles Of the scene at the time of the injury to and death of said deceased
 have been referred to no authort- lies and I know of none holding that a person, as an officer of corporation may commit voluntary manslaughter. he rfT fr7ea formerly required in framing conn Dlaints in criminal cases has been considerably relaxed, it Is still the law that sin all cases the essential el- e1nentEy of the crime must be charged; but they need not Joe charged in any nrecikse formula of words or set phrase. It is enough that the offense Is set forth with such clearne6s and cer- tairty as to apprise the accused of the crime for which he is called to answer. and to enable the jury to de- liver an intelligent verdict, the court to render a. proper judgment, and the accused to plead his conviction or ac- quittal in bar of another prosecution for the same offense.
 Wa1cott V. Stickles, S5 Conn, 326,
 Every information TOT a. criminal offense must set forth all the ingredi- ents of the crime charged with req sonable certainty. If it fails to do this it is bad on demurrer or on a mo- tion to arrest the Judgment
 State vs Kenna, 63 Conn, 330.
 The court, after the statement last