21 Ind. 277 | Ind. | 1863
The information in this case is as follows: “ State of Indiana v. John D. Mathis and Samuel Hege — In the Bartholomew Common Pleas: Jeptha D. New, prosecuting attor
The defendants moved to quash the information. The Court sustained the motion and the State excepted.
This information is said to be defective on two grounds: 1. Its caption does not state the county in which the prosecution was instituted. 2. It charges the obstruction of a public street instead of a public highway. The first ground is untenable. See Malone v. The State, 14 Ind. 220. A statement of the title of the Court to which the information is presented is sufficient, without naming the county. 2 G. & H. pp. 400, 403, 404; and, moreover, the offence is charged to have been committed in Bartholomew county. But Malone v. The State, supra, is decisive, that the first ground of objection is not well taken. Nor is the second at all available. “A public street in a town is a public highway.” Conner v. New Albany, 1 Blackf. 43, 45; Common Council, &c. v. Croas, 7 Ind. 9, 12. It may be that the town of Columbus is incorporated and has assumed by her by-laws to punish offences of this character; but whether this be- so, does not appear in the record, and hence we must intend that the Common Pleas had full cognizance of the case made by the information.
Per Curiam. — The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded.