Case Name: Peter Haught v. The Commonwealth
Court: General Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1815-06
Citations: 2 Va. Cas. 3
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Peter Haught v. The Commonwealth.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 111–112

Head Matter:
*Peter Haught v. The Commonwealth.
June Term, 1815.
Indicimentt — Date. —Indictment need not shew on its face when it was found.
Same —Misdescription of Prosecutor. — A plea in abatement of an Indictment for a trespass, or misdemeanor, alleging that the prosecutor is not a labourer, but an husbandman, is bad on demurrer.
Same — Prosecntor.--what words are sufficient to shew that one is a Prosecutor.
This was an adjourned case from the Superior Court of Taw of Harrison county. That Court had awarded a writ of error to a judgment rendered in the County Court of Harrison against the plaintiff in error.
The plaintiff in error had been indicted in the County Court for assaulting and beating one James Baker. The record of the Court set forth the day on which the Indictment was found. At the foot of the Indictment these words were written : “By the information of James Baker, labourer of Harrison county, sworn in Court, and endorsed as prosecutor at his request.” The plaintiff in error moved the Court to quash the Indictment, because it did not appear by the Indictment when it was found, and that it did not appear with proper precision that James Baker is prosecutor. The motion was overruled. The plaintiff, in error then filed a plea in abatement, by which he averred that the said prosecutor James Baker was a husbandman, and not a labourer : the prosecutor for the Commonwealth demurred to this plea, and the Court adjudged the plea to be bad : the plaintiff in error then pleaded not guilty, and there was verdict and judgment against him.
On the return of the writ of error to this judgment, the Superior Court of Harrison adjourned to the General Court the questions of law arising from the record.
Indictment — Date.—It is not necessary that the indictment should show on its face, the date when it was found. Burgess v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 483, 488, citing the principal case.
Same. — See monographic note on “Indictments, Informations and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
"There is no error in the judgment and proceedings of the County Court: which is ordered to be certified."