Durham v. People

Citations

• 5 Scam. 172

Syllabus

<p>Error to Sangamon.</p> <p>1. INDICTMENT — naming injured party. In stating in an indictment the name of a person upon whom an offence has been committed, certainty to a common intent only is necessary.' The name by which he is usually known and distinguished is sufficient, without stating his residence or addition.</p> <p>2. Same — surplusage. Whenever a description in an indictment can be stricken out, without affecting the charge against the prisoner, and without vitiating the indictment, it may be treated as surplusage on the trial, and need not be proved.</p> <p>3. Criminal law — twice in jeopardy. In an indictment for an offence committed upon several persons who are co-partners, it is unnecessary to allege the name of their co-partnership; and if such allegation be made, it may be treated as surplusage. A man cannot be twice placed in jeopardy, on the same accusation. If a prisoner has been once arraigned on a valid indictment, and acquitted, he can never again be put on his trial, and required to answer for the same offence.</p> <p>4. Same — saíne. Whether two indictments are for the same offence can only be determined by an inspection and comparison of the indictments, without the aid of extraneous circumstances. Where the facts charged in a second indictment would, if true, have procured a conviction on the first, the plea of autrefois acqtdt is well pleaded, (a) </p>