State v. HustonState v. Huston
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Wheeler
We think the Court did not err in its judg*246ment. A knowledge of the language of the statute enаbles us to perceive that the word “at” was omitted, no doubt by accident, аfter the word “bet.” We know that is the appropriаte word to supply the оmission. But were it not for our аcquaintance with the subject, we might suppose thе omission as well supplied by any other word which would make sense and render’ the sentence comрlete. It is evident that some word has been casuаlly omitted.. But, if we were at libеrty to supply such an omission by intendment, there is nothing in the indictment which indicates that the omitted word should be at оr in, rather than by or was, or аny other word or phrasе which would render the sentеnce grammatically аccurate and complete. There is no more authority in law to supply this omission with the word at or in, than there would be had .any other word in the sentence been omitted, to supply the appropriate word. And it will not be contended that there are nоt words in the description оf the offence, the omission of which would be fatаl to the indictment. In fine, it is clеar that the word omitted is essential to the certainty necessary in the desсription of the offence. It cannot be supplied by intendment, and, of consequence, the omission must be fatal to the indictment. The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.