Case Name: United States v. Henry Lloyd
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1834-05
Citations: 4 Cranch 464
Docket Number: 
Parties: United States v. Henry Lloyd.
Judges: (Thruston, J., not giving any opinion.)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 4
Pages: 464–464

Head Matter:
United States v. Henry Lloyd.
The want of a prosecutor’s name upon the indictment is no ground for arresting the judgment.
Assault and battery. Verdict for United Slates.
• Mr. Hewitt, for the defendant,
moved in arrest of judgment, that no prosecutor’s name had been written upon the indictment before it was sent to the grand jury, as required by the Act of Assembly of Virginia of November 13, 1792, p. 105, §§ 23, 24; and contended that the Court would have quashed the indictment upon motion before trial. That there was no difference in principle between a motion to quash, and a motion to arrest the judgment. If there was good ground to quash, there was, a fortiori good ground to arrest. 4 Bl. Com. 375.; 1 Chitty, Cr. L. 661, 663, 664. The new statute of Jeofails of Virginia of 1819, was passed before the case of Commonwealth v. Chalmers, 2 Virginia Cases, 76, 77. See Leigh’s Compilation of Virginia statutes, p. 611.
Mr. Key, contral
Nothing appears upon the face of the indictment to arrest the judgment. The case of the Commonwealth v. Chalmers, 2 Virginia Cases, 76, 77, is decisive. See also Worth-am's case, 5 Rand. 669.

Opinion:
The Court
overruled the motion,
(Thruston, J., not giving any opinion.)
The Court did not state the reasons for their decision; but the grounds were, that the provision of the statutes requiring the name of a prosecutor to be written on the indictment, was for the benefit of the defendant, that he might have security for costs, and to prevent unnecessary expense to the United States. If the defendant goes to trial without such security, he must be considered as having waived the benefit; and the United States have already incurred the expense.