Francisco v. State
1 Ind. 179 | Ind. | 1848
THIS was an indictment against the appellant for carrying on and transacting the business and occupation
Held, that the indictment, being founded on two sta-. tutes,is defective because it does not conclude, “contrary to the form of the statutes?'' The State v. Moses, 7 Blackf. 244.—The State v. Hunter, 8 id. 212. The indictment should, therefore, have been quashed; or the motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained.
The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.