Case Name: The Commonwealth v. Robert T. Sims
Court: General Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1823-11
Citations: 2 Va. Cas. 374
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The Commonwealth v. Robert T. Sims.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
*The Commonwealth v. Robert T. Sims.
Indictment — Failure to Add Defendant’s Estate — Effect. —An Indictment charging an assault,'is abateable by reason of no addition being made to the name of the Defendant, of his estate, degree or mystery.
Same — False Addition — How Advantage Taken of. -An ' addition 'being' given, must be .the true one, and, if not, it may be traversed by plea in abatement.
Same — Same—Effect.—The difference between the addition of labourer and yeoman, is sufficient to abate the Indictment.
The Defendant was indicted in the Superior Court of Culpeper,' for an assault on James Y. Horner. The Defendant was described in the Indictment, as “labourer.” The Defendant pleaded in abatement, that he was a yeoman, and not labourer. The Prosecutor 'for the Commonwealth demurred: the Court adjourned the following' questions :
1. Is an Indictment charging an assault, abateable by reason of no addition given to the Defendant?
2. If an addition be given, must it be the true’ one, and is1 such addition traversable by a plea in abatement, such as the one filed ?
3. Is the difference between the addition of labourer, and yeoman, as pleaded in the present Indictment, sufficient in Daw to abate the same ?
Absent, BROCKENBitotrciH, J„ during the remainder of the Term.
The principal case is cited and approved in Com. v. Clark, 2 Va. Cas. 403. See monographic note on “Indictments, Informations and Presentments’; appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674.

Opinion:
HOLMES, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court:
Our Statute, is nearly a copy of the Statute of 1 Hen. 5, ch. 5, which requires, that whenever the Exigent may issue, an addition to the name of the Defendant, of his estate, degree, or mystery, shall be made. The- Judges,present are all of opinion, that the addition of estáte, degree, or mystery, must be given, and if it is not, the Indictment •may be abated by the express words of the Daw ; but if a Defendant be a yeoman, and also a tradesman, as shoemaker, he may be indicted by either addition so that it be true : and most of us are of opinion, that the dis•tinction between yeoman and labourer, is a ,. • sound one, and pleadable in abatement.
*The judgment of the Court is, 1.
That an Indictment charging an assault, is abateable by reason of no addition given to the Defendant.
2. That an addition given must be the true one, and if not true, may be traversed by a plea in abatement, such as that filed.
3 That the difference between the addition of labourer, and yeoman,' as pleaded, is sufficient to abate the indictment.
1 Rev. Code of 1819, ch. 169, § 41, p. 610.