Case Name: PEOPLE v. CHAUNCEY ST. CLAIR et al.
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1880
Citations: 56 Cal. 406
Docket Number: No. 10,588
Parties: PEOPLE v. CHAUNCEY ST. CLAIR et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 56
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
[No. 10,588.
Department One.]
PEOPLE v. CHAUNCEY ST. CLAIR et al.
Ikdictmekt — Larceny—Burglary—Errob.— An indictment charged the . defendants with entering into a stable with intent to commit “larcey.” Held, that the indictment failed to describe any offense.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction, and an order denying a new trial and refusing to arrest judgment, in the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. Buckley, J.
After the decision in Department, the respondent filed a petition that the appeal be reheard in Bank, and the application was denied.
J. G. Swinnerton,. and G. E. McStay, for Appellant.
No offense was charged. “ Larcey ” is not a word in any language. This error is fatal. (State v. Holden, 2 McCord, 337; State v. Carter, Conf. Rep. 210; Lemon v. State, 6 Am. R. 293; Shaw v. State, 2 Tex. Ct. App. 487; Hawes v. State, id. 504.)
A. L. Hart, Attorney-General, for Respondent.
The omission of the letter “ n ” from the word “ larceny ” could not mislead, especially when read with the remainder of the indictment. No demurrer was interposed. In State v. Davis, 1 Ired. 125, it was held, that in an indictment the word “ assalt ” should read ,“ assault,” the word “ fifty-too ” should read “fifty-two,” and the word “make” was held to mean “mark,” in an indictment for putting a false mark on sheep. See also 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law, §§ 597, 598, showing in stances where “ Havc.ly ” was held equivalent to “ Haverly,” and “ autron ” to “ autumn,”

Opinion:
By the Count :
The indictment charges an entry into a stable with intent to commit "larcey." Burglary is the entering of a house, etc., " with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, or any felony." (Pen. Code, § 459.) There is no such felony as " larcey " known to our "law. "Larcey " is certainly not "larceny," nor does the maxim, idem sonans, apply.
It is said that the Court must give judgment without regard to the technical errors or defects, or to exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. (Pen. Code, § 1258.) But this is more than a departure from an established form; nor is it a case in which facts are averred in the indictment, which sufficiently indicate the sense in which the word purporting to name the crime is employed; but is a failure to describe any ofíense.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.