Case Name: UNITED STATES v. HOLLINSBERRY
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1829-11
Citations: 26 F. Cas. 345
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES v. HOLLINSBERRY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 26
Pages: 345–346

Head Matter:
Case No. 15,380.
UNITED STATES v. HOLLINSBERRY.
[3 Cranch, C. C. 645.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Nov. Term, 1829.
Indictment—Assault and Batteky—Prosecutor's Name.
j The court will, in motion, quash an indict - ¡ ment for assault and battery, in Alexandria, if the name of a prosecutor be not written at the foot thereof, although the accused shall have been recognized to appear at the court to answer for the offence.
[Cited in U. S. v. Helriggle, Case No. 15,344; U. S. v. Shackeltord, Id. 16.261.]
NOTE. See, also, U. S. v. B. Dulany, [Case No. 14.999], Dec. term, 1808; U. S. v. Saudford [Id. 16,221], 14th July. 1806; Virginia v. Leap [Id. 16,964], April, 1801; U. S. v. Jameson [Id. 15,-466], Jan., 1802: U. S. v. Singleton [Id. 16,-293], June, 1S05; U. S. v. Carr [Id. 14,729], Nov., 1823; U. S. v. Willis [Id. 16,728], Nov., ’ 1808.
Indictment [against John Hollinsberry] for assault and battery upon Robert Walker. No prosecutor's name was written upon the indictment.
Mr. Taylor, for the defendant,
moved the court to quash the indictment for that reason, which was done (MORSELL, Circuit Judge, absent), upon the authority of U. S. v. Helriggle [Case No. 15,344], at November term, 1827, and U. S. v. Shackelford [Id. 16.-201], at April term, 1828, although the defendant had been recognized by a justice of the peace to api>ear at this term to answer for the offence.
Mr. Swann, for the United States,
then offered the witnesses to be examined by the court, and prayed the court to order an indictment to be sent up to the grand jury. THE COURT examined them, but refused to order an indictment.
[Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief ! Judge.]

Opinion:
Mr. Swann
objected to the cross-examination of the witnesses by the defendant; but THE COURT overruled the objection.