v.
Anderson Phelps
The defendant was convicted only on the second count in the indictment; and it is insisted on a motion in arrest of judgment that said count is so defective, that the Court ought not to pronounce judgment.
It appears upon the face of the indictment, that the name of -the defendant is not mentioned in the commencement of the «statement of the offence, charging the receiving of the stolen goods; but, is subsequently introduced, that, “ He, the said Anderson Phelps, then and there, well knowing the said goods -and chattels to have been feloniously stolen,” &c.
A count in a bill of indictment, must be complete in itself, and contain all the material allegations which constitute the offence charged.
The general rules of pleading, as to the sufficiency of the in- dictment, are well stated in 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., sec. 411. “ The[*452] indictment must show on its face, that it has been found by competent authority, in accordance with the requirements of law; and that a particular person mentioned therein, has done within the jurisdiction of the indictors, such and such specific acts, at a specific time, which acts, so done, constitute what the Court can see, as a question of law, to be a crime.”
The count under consideration, is not in accordance with the precedents, 3 Chit. C. L. 988; and is detective in not containing the name of the defendant in the proper place, and distinctly and positively charging him with receiving the stolen goods, &e.-
The defect is not cured by the statute, Rev. Code, ch. 35, sec. 14; as there is an omission of a material averment, constituting the crime charged.
There is error. The judgment is arrested, and this must be certified to the end that the defendant may be discharged.