Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Blackf. 49

State v. Jackson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1835

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1835-05-29

<p>An indictment against a person for selling spirituous liquors to an Indian, cannot be objected to merely because the name of the Indian is not inserted, if the indictment state that the name is unknown to tho jurors.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1835-05-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1910

5 state decisions

10183518401850186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Blackford, J.

¶1Indictment against the defendant for selling spirituous liquors to an Indian. The indictment was quashed on motion of the defendant.

¶2The indictment -contains several counts. One of the counts states that the jury on their oath find,—That the defendant, (naming him,) on, &c. at, &c. (stating the time and place,) sold and disposed of a quantity of spirituous liquor, to wit, a pint of whiskey of the value of 10 cents, to an Indian of this state, of the Miami nation of Indians, the name of which, said Indian, to the jurors aforesaid is wholly unknown, contrary to the form of the statute and against the peace of the state.

¶3We are at a loss to conceive what objection could be taken to this count'of the indictment. The statute of 1832 states the offence described in the indictment to be an indictable one (1). Perhaps if may have been supposed that the name of the Indian should have been stated. The indictment, however, states the name to have been unknown to the jury, which is a sufficient reason for not inserting the name. An *50indictment for the murder of a stranger, or for larceny from the person of a stranger, stating the name to be unknown to the jury, cannot be objected to because the name of the stranger is omitted. Archbold’s Crim. Pleading, p. 11.

W. Herod, for the state.D. H. Colerick, for the defendant.

¶4We see no objection to the count to which we have referred; and the judgment must be reversed.

Per Curiam.

¶5The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

¶6 Accord. Rev. Stat. 1838, p. 223.

/4/blackf/49 · .json · Public domain