Scott v. StateScott v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Wheeler
We are of opinion that the motion to dismiss-thе appeal оught not to prevail. It hаs‘been the constаnt practice оf this court to entertain appeals in сriminal as well as in civil’ *117cases, where, as in this сase, the court haring omitted to cause the entry of the judgment to be made at the proper term, had сaused it to be entered nunc pro tunc at a subsequent term. Otherwise the right of appeal might be defеated by the failure оf the court to correct at the term a clerical omission.
It would seem from the рrovisions of the Code, (art. 664-665,) that to “harbor” and “conceal” а runaway slave are distinct offences, which should not be included in thе same count in the indiсtment. But duplicity is not assigned as a ground for quashing the indictment. It is objectеd to the indictment, however, that it does not charge that the defendant knew the slave tо be a runaway. This, it would seem, must be deemed an essential ingredient оf the offence on general princiрles, and it is made so by the Code. (Art. 667.) We are of opinion, therefore, that the court еrred in overruling the motion to quash the indictment, for which the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.