22 %`”‘ FEDERAL fnaroaran. ’
regardedby the supreme court of the state as amere technicality in mis-’
demeanor cases, and is followed simply because it has become a part of
its body of law. In a recent case in 88 Mo. 105, (State v. Vcmhook,) de-
_ cided in 1885, the chief justice of the state, though adhering to the rule s
. heretofore laid down, closes the opinion with this language; "After the
` jury is sworn and the trial proceeds, and all the testimony relates to the
` guilt or innocence of the accused in a misdemeanor case, it looks like
triiling with justice to reverse the judgment, because the record fails to
show an arraignment or plea of not guilty:" Language which I think
isa fair commentary in view of the statute of Missouri, (section 1821,)
which declares:*" But no new trial shall be granted "-—for·several rea-
sons, the last of which is this-"nor for any other defect or imperfection j
which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the de-
fendant upon the merits." Be that as it may, we have the federal stat-`
utes, and wherever there is a federal statute it controls irrespective of any
state law or practice.
In the first place, it is well to consider what the purpose and neces-
sity`- of an arraignment is. It is laid down in the old law books that
j three objects are to be subserved: (1)lThe—identiiication of the defend-
ant; (2)jgiving him information of the particular offense charged against
him for which he is to be tried; and (3) to receive from him the plea —
which he makes to that charge. , ` Now in the case, as tried, it is perfectly
evident that the defendant knew exactly the offense charged against
` him; that he was identified; and that he denied the charge and went to
trial upon that denial. Indeed, hewent on thewitness stand himself,
and there denied it. A It mayiseem something of an anomaly to say that
* proceedings may be such that in the.~tri—al court there is no_evidence of
prejudicial error when the record transferred to an appellate court may
disclose such error. And yet, this matter of arraignment presents very
much sucha case. Where a record taken to the supreme court shows
simply an indictment, a trial, and a conviction, there is nothing affirm-
atively appearing upon the face of the record from which that court can
` say that the defendant knew, prior to the impaneling of the jury, and
prior to the trial, the exact natureof the charge. against him. Nam crm-
stat but that he went to trial supposing that the charge was one thing,
and, after the testimony was introduced, discovered for the first time that
he was being tried for another and different offense. And so, pursuing
that thought, that court might say that the record disclosed error, be-
cause it failedto show, as one of the guaranties of his protection, that he
knew, prior to the time his case was presented to the jury, the exact
offense charged against him.{ But thetrial court may have had, as my
Brother`TuAYm1z had in this trial, the most abundant evidence that the
defendant knew exactly the offense which was chargeiliagainst him, and ‘
was prepared to go to trial upon it; andif he did,,_`all that the arraign-
ment subserves was accomplished; 1 and to say that he should be entitled
to a new trial" for that omission would` seem ‘to`be,’ as, Chief Justice
HENRY wellsays, "like triiling with justice." _· “
But,'further”than that, wehavethe federal statute, which provides