Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

52 Kan. 35

State v. Haist

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 15, 1893

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1893-07-15

At the March term, 1893, Barbra Haist was indicted for violations of the prohibitory liquor law. On March 31, 1893, the defendant filed her plea in abatement, in which she claimed that her name is “Barbara” Haist, and not “Barbra” Haist, as spelled in the indictment. To this plea the plaintiff filed a demurrer, claiming that the indictment should not be quashed for the reason that the name “Barbara” is spelled “Barbra” in said indictment.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1925

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

AlleN, J.:

¶2The defendant was indicted by the grand jury in Jackson county, and charged in 13 counts with divers violations of the prohibitory law. She was arrested, and thereafter filed her plea in abatement, alleging that her name is “Barbara,” not “Barbra.” The court sustained the plea in abatement and quashed the indictment. This was error. The names are idem sonans. The mere omission of the letter “a,” which, in correctly pronouncing the name “Barbara,” has but a very obscure sound, is too trifling an error in spelling to warrant the ruling of the court. Even if there had been a substantial mistake in the name of the defendant, the indictment should not have been quashed for that reason, but the case should have proceeded, in accordance with § 224 of the criminal code.

¶3The orders of the court sustaining the plea in abatement, quashing the indictment and discharging the defendant will be reversed.

All the Justices concurring.
/52/kan/35 · .json · Public domain