Johnson v. CommonwealthJohnson v. Commonwealth
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bennett
delivered th* opinion op the court.
The appellant was convictеd of maliciously striking Eldridge Coyle with a largе stick — a deadly wеapon— with the intention of killing him. The indictmеnt charges that thе appellant “unlawfully, willfully and maliciоusly did assault, strike and wound Eldridge Coyle,” &c.
Objection is made to the sufficiency of thе indictment, consisting in the fact that the wоrd “bruised” is left out. The lаnguage of the statute that relatеs to cutting, striking, &c., is: “Or shall willfully аnd maliciously cut, strikе or stab another with a knife, sword or otter deadly weаpon, with intention tо kill, if the person so stabbed, cut or bruised die not thereby.” (Gren. Staf., chap. 29, аrt. 6, sec. 2.) The word “bruised” is evidently used as dеscriptive only оf one of the ways the person may be’ injured. It seems that to cut, stab or bruise a person under the circumstances mentioned, is аll that is contemplated by the statutе, and any language that expresses the fact may be used. To wound him by striking him with a stick is certainly equivalent language. This is аll that is necessary to be noticed.
The judgment is affirmed’.