Case Name: The State of Ohio v. Johnson
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1901-03-12
Citations: 64 Ohio St. 270
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Ohio v. Johnson.
Judges: Minshauu, O J., Wiuuiams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 64
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
The State of Ohio v. Johnson.
Burglary — Section 6S35, Rev. Stat. — Sufficiency of indictment.
Under Revised Statutes, section 6835, as amended (82 O. L., 161), an indictment charging the defendant with having burglariously broken and entered “a certain building, to-wit, a certain store room then and there situate the property of one J. M. Durkin,” is 'sufficient.
(Decided March 12, 1901.)
Exceptions by the Prosecuting Attorney to the rulings of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene county.
The defendant was indicted for burglary and larceny. The. indictment charged the defendant with breaking into “a certain building, to-wit, a certain store room then and there situate, the property of one J. M. Durkin.” The defendant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, trial was had, and he was convicted as charged in the indictment. On the day of conviction a motion to arrest judgment Avas filed by the defendant’s counsel and avus sustained by the court on the sole ground that it is no crime in Ohio to enter or attempt to enter a store room, notwithstanding the proof shows it to be a building. To this decision of the court of common pleas the prosecuting attorney, on leave granted him, has filed his bill of exceptions.
Marcus Shoup, Prosecuting Attorney, for the state.
W. F. Trader, for the defendant.

Opinion:
By tiie Court:
General words, following particular words must, as a general rule, be confined to things of the same kind as those specified. Shultz v. Cambridge, 38 Ohio St., 659. But this is a rule which is designed to be used in aid of the interpretation of a statute, and ought not to be so used as to limit or defeat the legislative intent. The things specified in section 6835 of the Revised Statutes are not in any respect "things of the same kind," except that they are all buildings: so that the effect of the amendment to the section (82 O. L., 161), by adding the words "or any other building," is to extend the crime of burglary to any building whatever. This indictment with appropriate averments as to time, place and intent, charges that the burglary was committed by breaking and entering "a certain building, to-wit, a certain store room then and there situate, the property of one J. M. Durkin." This designates the building with sufficient certainty, whether the store room is the whole or only a part of the building; for breaking into such a room is necessarily breaking into the building of which it is a part. The case of Hagar v. The State, 35 Ohio St., 268, does not apply since the amendment of the statute. Exceptions sustained.
Minshauu, O J., Wiuuiams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.