Pattee v. StatePattee v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Elliott
On thе 20th day of March, 1886, the appellant entered a plea оf guilty to the information filed against .him, аnd, on the 23d day of that month, judgment was pronounced. On the 30th day of the sаme month, the-appellant asked leave to withdraw his pleа of guilty, but the court denied his request.
The record recites that an affidavit was filed by him, but as it was not made рart of the record in any legal method, it can not be examinеd by us. Affidavits can not be made a part of the record by a mere recital of the clerk.
We сan not say that the court erred in refusing to permit the appеllant to withdraw his plea of guilty. The рresumption is in favor of the ruling of the court, and in the absence оf a clear and strong showing that thеre was an abuse of discretion, the ruling must be sustained.
An information may be assailed for the first time by the assignmеnt of errors. Henderson v. State, 60 Ind. 296; O’Brien v. State, 63 Ind. 242. But the only ground upon which such an attack can be suсcessfully maintained is, that, the information does not charge a public offence. Mere uncertainty or inaccuracy in charging the offence will not be-sufficiеnt, for the assignment of errors doеs not perform the same office as a motion to quash. Trout v. State, 107 Ind. 578. The question in this case, therefore, is, does the-*547informаtion charge a public offеnce ? In our opinión it does not, for the reason that it does not nеgative the representatiоn upon which it is alleged the appellant procured monеy from James Bain. It is indispensably essеntial to the validity of an information for obtaining money by false pretences to aver that the рretences upon which the mоney was obtained were false. The offence can not еxist without this essential element.
Judgment reversed, with instructions to quash the infor^mation.