Case Name: State v. Downs
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1879-12
Citations: 59 N.H. 320
Docket Number: 
Parties: State v. Downs.
Judges: Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
State v. Downs.
An indictment, charging out-building adjoining that the building was house. that the respondent attempted to set fire to an a dwelling-house, is not supported by evidence near to but not in contact with the dwelling-
Indictment, charging that the respondent attempted to set fire to an out-building adjoining a dwelling-house. The evidence was, that the out-building did not touch the house; that the space between them at the base was four inches; that the house was higher than the out-building, and the roof of the house extended over it, leaving a space of about three feet between its top and the under side of the roof of the house. The respondent’s objection that there was a variance was proforma overruled. Verdict guilty, and motion in arrest of judgment.
Cogswell and Slone, for the respondent.
Rogers, solicitor, for the state.

Opinion:
Stanley, J.
The motion for the discharge of the respondent should have been granted. There was a variance between the indictment and the proof. The out-building did not adjoin the dwelling-house. "Adjoining" is a synonym for "adjacent to," " contiguous." it was not adjacent to or contiguous, that is, in contact with the house. Arkell v. Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 192; Rex v. Hodges, 1 Moo. & M. 341; Peverelly v. People, 3 Park. 59; 2 Russ. Cr. 557-561.
The statute upon which this indictment was found specifies three distinct offences, although the punishment is the same in all of them. They are, — first, burning a dwelling-house; second, burning any out-building adjoining a dwelling-house; third, burning any building whereby a dwelling-house shall be burned. The words an out-building adjoining a dwelling-house are words of description, and must be proved. A conviction under this indictment, upon the evidence received, would be no bar to an indictment for attempting to set fire to an out-building whereby a dwelling-house might be burned, and the evidence received in this case would support such a charge.
Judgment arrested.
Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.