Case Name: The State v. Walker and Davison
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1808-11
Citations: 2 Brev. 255
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Walker and Davison.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
NOV., 1808.
The State v. Walker and Davison.
An indictment for forcible entry was arrested for want of certainty, the words being “ a certain messuage, with the appurtenances, for a term of years, in the district of Spartanburg.” It was adjudged, that the place where, was npt described with sufficient legal certainty.
Motion to reverse a decision made by Brevakp, J., in Spartan-burg District Court. Indictment for a forcibly entry and detainer. The indictment stated, that Susannah Walker was, on the 25th day of March, possessed of a certain messuage, with the appurtenances, for a term of years then still to come, and unexpired, into which messuage the defendants entered. After verdict of guilty against the defendant, Davison, his counsel moved an arrest of judgment i anc^ a^ter hearing- argument, the judge decided in favor of the mob°n > whereupon, the solicitor, Taylok, appealed ; and iri support ^'s nK)tl0fl ^01 a revers£d °f the decision of the District Court, argued, that the indictment was good ; that it was sufficiently certain ; being certain to a common intent. The criminal charge set forth in the indictment was so expressed, as to give the defendant all the notice that was necessary, to enable him to prepare for his defence, which was all he could require, and all that the law requires. Cited Cowp. 682. 4 Com. Dig.
Gist, contra.
Every charge in an indictment ought to be so described, as that the party charged may know how to defend himself against it; and so that it may be pleaded in bar to a second indictment for the same offence; and especially indictments for forcibly entry and detainer, should so certainly describe the lands trespassed upon, as that the sheriff may be at no loss upon a writ of restitution, to restore the injured party to the possession. 3 Bac.'Abr. 255. The messuage, mentioned in this indictment, is not described with sufficient certainty. Although, from a view of the whole indictment, it does appear that the messuage in the indictment mentioned, lies in Spartanburg district; yet it does not appear whereabouts in the district it is situate.

Opinion:
Per curiam,
instanter. The indictment is defective, in not describing the place where the trespass was committed, with more certainty, and more definitely.
Motion dismissed.