Case Name: The State vs. Aaron Caspary
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1858-05
Citations: 11 Rich. 356
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State vs. Aaron Caspary.
Judges: O’Neall, Whitner, Glover and Muítro, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
The State vs. Aaron Caspary.
Bastardy — Indictment.
Qjo-^oC ftyfeTlgyiy) s.yy r y-:-PÍ. GLS> — tr£~r>.—■ An indictment for bastardy, alleging that A. 0. “is the farmer of the said bastard child — Held, bad, on motion in arrest of judgment.
BEFORE WARDLAW, J., AT ANDERSON, SPRING TERM, 1858.
■ This was an indictment for bastardy. A printed form was •used which, after alleging the birth of the child, &c., proceeded as follows: “And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present, that one Aaron Caspary is the farther of the said bastard child, and has refused to enter into recognizance,” &c. The defendant was found guilty. He appealed, and now moved this Court in arrest of judgment, on the ground, that the defendant was not legally charged with being the father of the bastard child, the use of the word farther rendering the sense obscure and uncertain.
Wilkes, for appellant,
cited Act of 1889, §12, 11 Stat. 16; República_ vs. Tryer, 8 Yeates, 451; 5 Bac. Abr. 90. The words of the statute would be pursued with the utmost exactness; State vs. Petty, Harp. 59; 2 Hill, 459; State vs. Butler & Quin, 8 McC. 883; and the defendant must be brought within all the material words, and nothing can be taken by intendment. State vs. OBannan, 1 Bail. 383. Clerical and grammatical errors will not vitiate, unless they change the word or obscure the meaning. State vs. Wimberly, 3 McC. 190; State vs. Bolder, 2 McC. 377; Commonwealth vs. Wentz, 1 Ashmead, 269; State vs. Garter, Cam. & N. 210; 1 Chit. Cr. L. 171, note e, 172, 214.
Heed, Solicitor, contra.

Opinion:
Tbe opinion of tbe Court was delivered by
"Wardlaw, J.
Tbe tendency of modern decisions bas been to efface tbe blemish wbicb Lord Hale observed in tbe law, (2 Hale, 193,) occasioned by tbe strictness required in indictments: but still it is admitted that technical objections, which would be unavailing in civil proceedings, must be allowed in criminal. (1 Leach, 134). Clerical and grammatical errors wbicb do not affect tbe sense, will be ordinarily disregarded, (3 MeC.193): but where tbe omission or addition of a letter makes a change of tbe word, so as to make another word, it becomes material when it occurs in certain parts of an indictment. If it occurs in setting forth an instrument, according to tbe tenor, it vitiates, although tbe sense may not be affected: — as nor for not, (2 Salk. 660): whilst under-tood for understood, would even there be disregarded. (Oowp. 229 ; 1 Leach, 145.) If, as in this case, such omission or addition occurs in setting out those material words of a statute, which must be pursued in describing a statutory offence, a want of the necessary certainty is produced, wherever the meaning is obscured. That the defendant is farther of a bastard child is perhaps nonsensical, certainly ambiguous: — only by intendment and indulgence not allowed in criminal proceedings, could we say that the meaning is, he is the father. It might be different, if the word had been written faether; for that would not be a different word, and would be a provincial corruption of father.
Let the judgment be arrested.
O'Neall, Whitner, Glover and Muítro, JJ., concurred.
Motion granted.