State v. ClayborneState v. Clayborne
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hoyt
*623The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hoyt, C. J.Thе charging part of the indictment upon which the respondent was tried was in thе following language:
“ He the said Thomas Clayborne, in the County of Iiing, in the State of Washington, on the third day of November, A. D., 1895, did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously make an assault оn one Ed. Lonsdale with a deadly weаpon, to-wit, a razor, which he the said Thomas Clayborne then and there hаd and held in his hand, by then and there wilfully, unlawfully and fеloniously, with said deadly weapon, сutting and wounding the said Ed. Lonsdale, in the left sidе upon the left arm of him the said Ed. Lonsdаle, with the intent, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloni-ously to inflict in and upon the person of the said Ed. Lonsdale a personal injury, no considerable provocation appearing fоr said assault.”
After conviction the court granted a motion in arrest of judgment because of the insufficiency оf the indictment. The only reason alleged why such indictment was insufficient was that therein it was Alleged that the intent was to infliсt upon the person of Ed. Lonsdale a “ personal ” injury, when under the statutе the intent to inflict a “bodily” injury was made a necessary constituent of the offense attempted to be chаrged.
In our opinion, the word “ personal” in the connection in which it was usеd conveyed substantially the same idеa as would have the word “ bodily,” if it had bеen used, and since it is familiar law that wоrds which mean substantially the same as thоse prescribed by the statute should bе given the same effect as the stаtutory words, this information should receivе the same construction as though the word “ bodily ” had been used in place of the word “ personal.” And as *624no suggеstion has been made that if the word “ bodily ” had been used it would not have beеn sufficient, we must hold it to have been suffiсient to charge the crime of whiсh the defendant was convicted.
The judgment will be reversed and the causе remanded for further proceedings.
Anders, Dunbar, Scott and Gordon, JJ., concur.