State v. Wells

Decided May 15, 1873

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1873-05-15

<p>"Where the exception was to the ruling of the court permitting an indictment to be amended by inserting the value of the mule alleged to have been stolen;</p> <p>Held — That it was not necessary that the value of the animal should have been set forth in the iudictment. The amendment added nothing to the validity of the instrument, nor did it in any manner vitiate it. Vtile per inutile non vitiatur.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1932

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Taliafeeuo, J.

¶1The defendant was indicted for stealing a mule. He was found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for three j'ears. He has appealed.

¶2The case is presented by a bill of exceptions to the ruling of the court permitting the indictment to be amended by inserting the value of the mule alleged to have been stolen. The stealing a horse, ass or mule is a. statutory offense. Revised Statutes, section 814.

¶3 *373“Indictments for statutory offenses must describe the offense in tbe words of tbe statute, or words certain and equivalent.” 5 An. 324.

¶4It was not necessary that tbe value of the animal should have been set forth in the indictment. The amendment added nothing to the validity of the instrument, nor did it in any manner vitiate it. Utile per inutile non vitiatur.

¶5Judgment affirmed.