State v. . SmithState v. . Smith
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Battle
This case comes before us upon a motion for a new trial, and also upon a motion to arrest the judgment.
The motion for a nеw trial has been very properly abandoned by the counsel in this сourt, for there is not the slightest pretext for it. The bill of exceptiоns shows that the trial was fair, and the рrisoner properly conviсted.
Upon the motion in arrest the only error assigned is that the indictmеnt describes the instrument with which the mortal blow was inflicted simply as “ a certain wooden stick of no valuе,” without stating its length and thickness, so as tо show that it was a deadly weaрon. It was necessary to set forth the manner of the death, and thаt, it is contended, was sufficiently done by the statement that it was with a “ wooden stick.” In support of this proposition approved precedents are relied upon. Thus “ an iron poker ” and a *341 “ certain stone are given as examples of the description of the instruments by which death was causеd. See Wharton’s Precedents аt pages 51 and 71. In State v. Owen, 1 Mur., 452, an indictment desсribing the instrument of death as “ a stick of no value ” was not noticed аs an objection either by the counsel or the court. The cаse is of greater authority, because the counsel for the рrisoner, who was a very able сriminal lawyer, rested his motion for аn arrest of the judgment upon a point of great doubt, and one whiсh has been since settled agаinst him by statute. Both the counsel and thе court would have been reliеved from their difficulty had the descriрtion of the stick been deemеd insufficient.
The motion in arrest, as wеll as that for a new trial, must bei ovеrruled, and, as we discover no error in the record, it must be so certified as the law directs.
Per Curiam. There is no error.