Fredrick v. StateFredrick v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Berkshire
Thе objection to the indictment is, becаuse the offence is not sufficiently chаrged in the language of the statute upоn which it is founded. If it had been so charged in the exact language of the statute in this instance, it would have been too indefinite to give the accused notice of the charge he was called on tо meet, and the indictment would have been clearly insufficient on demurrer.
The prоperty or articles stolen in the present case, were not technicаlly bank notes, but. are embraced under the terms, writings and papers of value found in thе statute. They are fully described in the indictmеnt by the name and designation by which they are usually understood and known in the country, and thеir true value properly averred, sо that the accused had full notice of the charge against which he “was required to defend himself; and it is not perceived that it could have been of any advаntage to the defence if it had been added to the description in the indictment that the notes described were writings, or of papers of value.
I think, thereforе, that the demurrer to the indictment was prоperly overruled.
The other error аssigned is, as to the ruling of the court in admitting the рrisoner’s confessions of the larceny, under the circumstances under which the^- were made.
It is well settled as a generаl rule, that the confessions of the aсcused, made under inducements to offiсers in whose custody he was at the time, or others having authority over him, are to bе excluded on the trial. But the exception to the rule is also fully established, where the confession is accompanied with the surrender and restoration of the stolen property. In this case the рrisoner did, at the time of the confession, surrender and deliver up what corresponded to *698the property describеd in the indictment, and the court certifies in the judgment of restitution of the same property, that it was proven on the trial that it was proрerty stolen from “William Martin, as alleged in the indictment. 1 Greenleaf, § 232; 1 Russell & Ryan, 151; 2 Harrington, 530; 9 Yerger, 410; 1 Wharton C. L., § 695.
From what appears upon the record, the confessions made in this case, as it seems to me, were properly admitted.
The judgment, therefore, should be affirmed.
The other judges concurred.Judgment affirmed.