delivered the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiff in error seeks his release from the custody of the Sheriff of Tipton County by the writ of habeas corpus. He is held by аuthority of a final judgment of conviction for misdemeanor. He contends that the judgment of conviction is void because the indictment supporting it is void; rendered so because it fails to conсlude with the words: “against the peace and dignity of the state.”
The Constitution, article VI, section 12, requires that every indictment shall be concluded with these words; that is, that the offense described therein shall be charged to have been committed against the peace and dignity of the state, characterizing it as a public wrong, an offense against the power and authority of the sovereign, and not a mere trespass on individual rights.
The constitutional requirement has served a twofold purpose. It put an end to an earlier formalism which involved the draftsman of' an indictment in doubt аnd perplexity as to the proper language to be employed in charging the commissiоn of a crime. It has served to emphasize, and therefore to preserve, the conception of a crime as an offense against the public, and a public prosecution as a proceeding for the protection of the state and not a proceeding to avenge a private wrong.
The prosecution of the plaintiff in error in the criminal court was regular in every particular save in the one formality. The indictment was signed by the public prоsecutor, the representative of the State. The plaintiff in error treated it as a valid аccusation of crime by pleading not guilty, and after his conviction, invoked *476 ilie jurisdiction of this cоurt to set aside the conviction and grant Mm a new trial. It was not until after final judgment bad been .renderеd, and execution bad been ordered to issue, that be complained, by this petition for tbe writ оf habeas corpu,s, that tbe formal defect in tbe indictment rendered it void, so that the criminal court bad no jurisdiction оf the offense nor of bis person.
In Rice v. State, 50; Tenn. (3 Heist.), 215, tbe case was before tbe court on apрeal in error from a judgment of conviction. An attack was made upon the indictment for failurе to conclude as required by tbe constitution. The indictment was held sufficient, tbe req-r uisite conclusion at tbe end of tbe second count being held to relate to the preceding count. Tbe еffect of failure to comply with tbe constitutional requirement was, therefore, not necessary to the decision of tbe court. However, tbe court there said that an indictment without the conclusion required by the constitution is a nullity, not amounting to an accusation of crime, and that tbе accused may not waive bis .rigfits in this respect.
In so far as tbe rights of the accused are concerned, tbe concluding words of an indictment, ‘ ‘ against the peace and dignity of tbe state,” have no effect save to inform him that the act with which be is charged was a violation of a penal law of tbe state, which is a conclusion of law essential to a conviction. It is difficult to conceive of prejudice resulting to a defendant from the omission of these words, the indiсtment and trial being regular in every other respect.
Whim
v.
State,
It is not necessary now to determine whether the principle just stated should be applied to save an indictment not in compliance with the constitutional requirement, if objection is made before the termination of the prosecution but after verdict. Here the objection is made for the first time in a separate proceeding and while final judgment was in process of being executed.
The final judgment, under which the plaintiff in errоr is held by the sheriff, recited the truth of the facts stated i-n the indictment, and these facts constitute an offense against the peace and dignity of the state, the court judicially knowing the law applicable thereto. The minutes of the criminal court show that the trial was conducted as a рublic prosecution by the official representative of the 'State. It is our opinion and conclusion therefore that the omission of the formal conclusion front the indictment must be held to have been supplied by the judgment rendered, on the verdict of the jury, after a trial otherwise rеgular. In this we think the spirit and purpose of the constitutional requirement are observed, in keeрing with the often expressed aim of courts to “escape from the embarrassments of technicalities that tend to defeat law and right.”
Givens
v.
State,
The judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus is accordingly affirmed.