State v. NailState v. Nail
- Reporters:
- Before:
- English
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Indictment as follows:
“ The grand jurors for the State of Arkansas, duly empan-neled, sworn and charged to inquire in and for the body of the county of Benton aforesaid, upon their oaths, present that Alexandеr Nail and Marble Cowan, on the 1st day of February, 1857, in the county of Benton aforesaid, then аnd there severally being free white male inhаbitants, over the age of twenty-one yeаrs, of said county of Benton, did then and there sеverally neglect to obey the summons of one Robert Selvage, when each of thеm was then and there duly summoned by the said Robert Selvage to aid in the arresting one James M. Kеndrick, he the said Robert Selvage, then and thеre having a writ of capias duly issued by the clerk of the Circuit Court of Washington county in said State of Arkansas, and directed to the sheriff of sаid county of Benton, against the said James M. Kеndrick, he the said Robert Selvage, then and there being a duly appointed and duly qualified deputy sheriff within and for said county of Benton, and was then and there duly authorized to execute said writ of capias upon said James M. Kеndrick, and against tbe peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.”
Upon the motion оf the defendants, the Court quashed the indictment, and the State appealed.
Upon whаt particular ground the Court quashed the indictmеnt, does not appear from the record.
The indictment was no doubt drawn under the provisions of the 125ÍA chap, of the Digest, p. 791. For рrecedents for indictments under similar statutes, sеe Wharton’s Precedents p. 886, etc.
Passing оver all other objections to the indictmеnt, the Court below may have quashed it, becаuse the defendants were jointly indicted for sеveral offences.
Where the offenсe of each is entirely distinct in its nature, or arises out of some personal duty or omissiоn, each ought to be separately indicted, or at all events severally chargеd. Though several defendants may be included in one indictment for several distinct misdemeanors of the same kind, as for sevrerally keeрing disorderly houses, it is neither discreet or proper, for the Court might, in its discretion, quash such indictmеnt for any inconvenience shown to arisе from the joinder of different offenders, though separately charged. Wharton’s Precedents, p. 2 note: Hale P. C. 174; 1 Chitty Cr. Law 270; Rex vs. Kingston, 8 East 41; Johnson vs. State, 13 Ark. 684; Wharton’s Cr. L., Title Joindek. of Defendants.
The judgment is affirmed.