Case Name: The State vs. Levin Dowell
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1831-12
Citations: 3 G. & J. 310
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State vs. Levin Dowell.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of Appeals of Maryland
Volume: 3
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
The State vs. Levin Dowell.
December, 1831.
It is sufficiently certain in an indictment to describe the article stolen as “one hide of the value,” &c.
Error to Calvert County Court.
An Indictment had been found against .Dowell, by the grand jury of Calvert county, in the following words:
“ The grand jurors of the State of Maryland, for Calvert county, upon their oath do present, that Levin Dowell, late of said county, yeoman, on the 10th January, 1830,. with force and arms at the county aforesaid, one hide of the value of one dollar current money, and one other hide, of the value of one dollar, current money, of the goods and chattels of James Kent, and Daniel Kent, then and there being found, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away, against the act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government, and dignity of the State.”
Upon the plea of not guilty, there was a verdict for the State.
The defendant then moved in arrest of judgment upon the ground. 1st. That the indictment does not describe the kind of hides charged to have been stolen. ■ 2d. That the indictment charges the stealing of two hides, and the proof in support of that allegation is, that the accused did steal an ox hide, and a calf skin. The County Court sustained the motion, and arrested the judgment. The present writ of error was thereupon taken out.
The cause was argued before Buchanan, Ch. J., Earle, Martin, Stephen, and Archer, J.
Boyle for the State,
after referring, upon the question of the certainty required in indictments, to 5 Coke, 125. Russel on Crimes, 1147, 1181. Cowp. Rep. 682. 2 East. Crown. Law, 777, 602, 616. Archbold, C. Plea. 130. 3 Maul, and Selw. 539, was stopped by the court, who

Opinion:
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT, AND AWARDED PROCEDENDO.