It is important and necessary that every name in the in- 

 dictment should be almost absolutely correct, that every 

 piece of property named in the indictment should be accu- 

 rately described, and that the indictment should charge the 

 crime with precision and fulness. If, after the grand jury 

 has adjourned, it is discovered that it is charged against a 

 thief, that he " did steal, take and carry '" certain goods, 

 the indictment is imperfect, because it should have been 

 charged that he " did steal, take and carry away " the 

 goods. If he is charged with the larceny of a certain num- 

 ber of bottles of whiskey, and the proof shows that the 

 whiskey was not stolen in the bottles but was drawn by the 

 thief into the bottles from the casks of the owner, he must 

 be acquitted. If he is charged with the adulteration of a 

 ••' certain substance intended for food, to wit, one pound of 

 confectionery," the indictment is insufficient because it should 

 have been alleged what kind of confectionery he adulter- 

 ated. If he is charged with stealing a number of diffei-ent 

 articles of a certain collective value, and the jury find that 

 he stole all the articles but one, he must be acquitted, al- 

 though if the same articles had been alleged to have been 

 of separate values, he may be convicted for those which the 

 nroof shows he actually did steal, although the values may 

 not be accurately stated. If he is charged with an assault 

 upon John Smith and it appears that the assault was upon 

 John A. Smith, he must be acquitted. If he is charged 

 with maintaining a building as a liquor nuisance, and it ap- 

 pears that he occupied a part only of the building, he must 

 be acquitted. And in all these cases, justice has not been 

 done, and great expense has been incurred. These are not 

 fanciful cases, but are taken almost at random from the 

 decisions of our Supreme Court. 



I believe that this could be remedied without in any way 



